We Keep Coding

Set variable to reference another variable, Java

In Android Studio, I have two array lists with a custom object
ArrayList<MenuMaker> consessionlist = new ArrayList<MenuMaker>();
ArrayList<MenuMaker> entrylist = new ArrayList<MenuMaker>();
And have a few voids that depending on which mode we are in, it needs to use one ArrayList or the other:
private void createMenuButtons()
{
int FoodSize = consessionlist.size();
...
I realize I could do an if statement that if mode = 0 use consessionlist, else use entrylist, but is there a way to say
private void setmode(mode)
{
if (mode == 0){
menulist = consessionlist;
}
else
{
menulist = entrylist;
}
}
private void createMenuButtons()
{
int FoodSize = menulist.size();
...
*Pass-by-reference vs pass-by-value seem to kick my butt on the Oracle test.

I thought I would have to use an if statement overtime I need to choose or have to add some weird complexity, but thus far its actually working as I wanted it to.

Populating a Boolean Array in Java

As a fairly green Java coder I've set myself the hefty challenge of trying to write a simple text adventure. Unsurprisingly, I've encountered difficulties already!
I'm trying to give my Location class a property to store which exits it contains. I've used a boolean array for this, to essentially hold true/false values representing each exit. I'm not entirely convinced that
a) this is the most efficient way to do this and
b) that I'm using the right code to populate the array.
I would appreciate any and all feedback, even if it is for a complete code over-haul!
At present, when instantiating a Location I generate a String which I send through to the setExits method:
String e = "N S U";
secretRoom.setExits(e);
In the Location class, setExits looks like this:
public void setExits(String e) {
if (e.contains("N"))
bexits[0] = true;
else if (e.contains("W"))
bexits[1] = true;
else if (e.contains("S"))
bexits[2] = true;
else if (e.contains("E"))
bexits[3] = true;
else if (e.contains("U"))
bexits[4] = true;
else if (e.contains("D"))
bexits[5] = true;
}
I'll be honest, I think this looks particularly clunky, but I couldn't think of another way to do it. I'm also not entirely sure now how to write the getExits method...
Any help would be welcome!

The most efficient and expressive way is the following:
Use enums as Exits and use an EnumSet to store them. EnumSet is an efficient Set implementation that uses a bit field to represent the enum constants.
Here is how you can do it:
public enum Exit { North, West, South, East, Up, Down; }
EnumSet<Exit> set = EnumSet.noneOf(Exit.class); // An empty set.
// Now you can simply add or remove exits, everything will be stored compactly
set.add(Exit.North); // Add exit
set.contains(Exit.West); // Test if an exit is present
set.remove(Exit.South); //Remove an exit
Enum set will store all exits in a single long internally, so your code is expressive, fast, and saves a lot of memory.

Is there any reason why you are doing this with Strings and aren't passing in booleans, i.e.
public void setExits(boolean N, boolean E, boolean S, boolean W, boolean U, boolean D)
Or having setters?
public void setNorthOpen(boolean open)
{
bexits[4] = open;
}
Secondly, why are you storing the exits as an array of booleans, it's a small finite set, why not just
boolean N,S,E,W,U,D;
As then you don't need to keep track of which number in the array each direction is.
Also
This is a correct answer (if not completely optimal like that of #gexicide) but I fully encourage anyone to look at the other answers here for an interesting look at how things can be done in Java in different ways.
For future reference
Code which works belongs on Code Review, not Stack Overflow. Although as #kajacx pointed out, this code shouldn't -in fact- work.

OK, first of all, your setExits() method will not work as intended, chained if-elseif will maximally execute 1 branch of code, for example:
if (e.contains("N"))
bexits[0] = true;
else if (e.contains("W"))
bexits[1] = true;
Even if e contains both N and W, only bexits[0] will be set. Also this method will only add exits (for example calling setExits("") will not delete any existing exits.
I would change that method to:
bexits[0] = e.contains("N");
bexits[1] = e.contains("W");
...
Also, i definetly wouldn't remember that north is on index 0, west in on 1, ... so a common practice is to name your indexes using final static constants:
public static final int NORTH = 0;
public static final int WEST = 1;
...
Then you can write in your setExits method:
bexits[NORTH] = e.contains("N");
bexits[WEST] = e.contains("W");
...
(much more readible)
Finally, if you want your code even more well-arranged, you can make a Exits class representing avaliable exits, and backed by boolean array. Then on place where you create your String, you could create this class instead and save yourself work with generating and then parsing a string.
EDIT:
as #gexicide answers, there is a really handy class EnumSet which would be probably better for representing the exits than bollean array.

The EnumSet in the other answer is the best way to do this, I just wanted to add one more thing though for the future when you start looking not just at whether you can move but where you are moving to.
As well as EnumSet you also have EnumMap.
If you define a Room class/interface then inside the Room class you can have
Map<Direction, Room> exits = new EnumMap<>(Direction.class);
You can now add your links into the map as follows:
exits.put(Direction.NORTH, theRoomNorthOfMe);
Then your code to move between rooms can be very general purpose:
Room destination=currentRoom.getExit(directionMoved);
if (destination == null) {
// Cannot move that way
} else {
// Handle move to destination
}

I would create an Exit enum and on the location class just set a list of Exit objects.
so it would be something like:
public enum Exit { N, S, E, W, U, D }
List<Exit> exits = parseExits(String exitString);
location.setExits(exits);

Given what your code looks like, this is the most readable implementation I could come up with:
public class Exits {
private static final char[] DIRECTIONS = "NSEWUD".toCharArray();
public static void main(String... args) {
String input = "N S E";
boolean[] exits = new boolean[DIRECTIONS.length];
for(int i = 0; i< exits.length; i++) {
if (input.indexOf(DIRECTIONS[i]) >= 0) {
exits[i] = true;
}
}
}
}
That being said, there's a number of cleaner solutions possible. Personally I would go with enums and an EnumSet.
By the way, your original code is incorrect, as it will set as most one value in the array to true.

If you're defining exits as a string, you should use it. I would do it like:
public class LocationWithExits {
public static final String NORTH_EXIT="[N]";
public static final String SOUTH_EXIT="[S]";
public static final String EAST_EXIT="[E]";
public static final String WEST_EXIT="[W]";
private final String exitLocations;
public LocationWithExits(String exitLocations) {
this.exitLocations = exitLocations;
}
public boolean hasNorthExit(){
return exitLocations.contains(NORTH_EXIT);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
LocationWithExits testLocation=new LocationWithExits(NORTH_EXIT+SOUTH_EXIT);
System.out.println("Has exit on north?: "+testLocation.hasNorthExit());
}
}
using array of booleans might cause a lot of problems if you forget what exactly means bexits[0]. Os it for north or south? etc.
or you can just use enums and list of exits available . Then in methid test if list contain a certain enum value

Personally, I think you can hack it around a bit using an enum and turn the following:
public void setExits(String e) {
if (e.contains("N"))
bexits[0] = true;
else if (e.contains("W"))
bexits[1] = true;
else if (e.contains("S"))
bexits[2] = true;
else if (e.contains("E"))
bexits[3] = true;
else if (e.contains("U"))
bexits[4] = true;
else if (e.contains("D"))
bexits[5] = true;
}
into
public enum Directions
{
NORTH("N"),
WEST("W"),
SOUTH("S"),
EAST("E"),
UP("U"),
DOWN("D");
private String identifier;
private Directions(String identifier)
{
this.identifier = identifier;
}
public String getIdentifier()
{
return identifier;
}
}
and then do:
public void setExits(String e)
{
String[] exits = e.split(" ");
for(String exit : exits)
{
for(Directions direction : Directions.values())
{
if(direction.getIdentifier().equals(exit))
{
bexits[direction.ordinal()] = true;
break;
}
}
}
}
Although after having written it down, I can't really tell you if it's that much better. It's easier to add new directions, that's for sure.

All the approaches listed in the answeres are good. But I think the approach you need to take depends on the way you are going to use the exit field. For example if you are going to handle exit as strings then Ross Drews approach would require a lot of if-else conditions and variables.
String exit = "N E";
String[] exits = exit.split(" ");
boolean N = false, E = false, S = false, W = false, U = false, D = false;
for(String e : exits){
if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("N")){
N = true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("E")){
E = true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("W")){
W= true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("U")){
U = true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("D")){
D = true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("S")){
S = true;
}
}
setExits(N, E, S, W, U, D);
Also if you have an exit and you want to check whether a location has that particular exit then again you will have to do the same
public boolean hasExit(String exit){
if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("N")){
return this.N; // Or the corresponding getter method
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("E")){
return this.E;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("W")){
return this.W;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("U")){
return this.U;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("D")){
return this.D;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("S")){
return this.S;
}
}
So if you are going to manipulate it as a string, in my opinion the best approach would be to go for list and enum. By this way you could do methods like hasExit, hasAnyExit, hasAllExits, hasNorthExit, hasSouthExit, getAvailableExits etc etc.. very easily. And considering the number of exits (6) using a list (or set) wont be an overhead. For example
Enum
public enum EXIT {
EAST("E"),
WEST("W"),
NORTH("N"),
SOUTH("S"),
UP("U"),
DOWN("D");
private String exitCode;
private EXIT(String exitCode) {
this.exitCode = exitCode;
}
public String getExitCode() {
return exitCode;
}
public static EXIT fromValue(String exitCode) {
for (EXIT exit : values()) {
if (exit.exitCode.equalsIgnoreCase(exitCode)) {
return exit;
}
}
return null;
}
public static EXIT fromValue(char exitCode) {
for (EXIT exit : values()) {
if (exit.exitCode.equalsIgnoreCase(String.valueOf(exitCode))) {
return exit;
}
}
return null;
}
}
Location.java
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Location {
private List<EXIT> exits;
public Location(){
exits = new ArrayList<EXIT>();
}
public void setExits(String exits) {
for(char exitCode : exits.toCharArray()){
EXIT exit = EXIT.fromValue(exitCode);
if(exit != null){
this.exits.add(exit);
}
}
}
public boolean hasExit(String exitCode){
return exits.contains(EXIT.fromValue(exitCode));
}
public boolean hasAnyExit(String exits){
for(char exitCode : exits.toCharArray()){
if(this.exits.contains(EXIT.fromValue(exitCode))){
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
public boolean hasAllExit(String exits){
for(char exitCode : exits.toCharArray()){
EXIT exit = EXIT.fromValue(exitCode);
if(exit != null && !this.exits.contains(exit)){
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public boolean hasExit(char exitCode){
return exits.contains(EXIT.fromValue(exitCode));
}
public boolean hasNorthExit(){
return exits.contains(EXIT.NORTH);
}
public boolean hasSouthExit(){
return exits.contains(EXIT.SOUTH);
}
public List<EXIT> getExits() {
return exits;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
String exits = "N E W";
Location location = new Location();
location.setExits(exits);
System.out.println(location.getExits());
System.out.println(location.hasExit('W'));
System.out.println(location.hasAllExit("N W"));
System.out.println(location.hasAnyExit("U D"));
System.out.println(location.hasNorthExit());
}
}

Why not this if you want a shorter code:
String symbols = "NWSEUD";
public void setExits(String e) {
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
bexits[i] = e.contains(symbols.charAt(i));
}
}

If you want a generic solution you can use a map, which maps from a key (in your case W, S, E.. ) to a corresponding value (in your case a boolean).
When you do a set, you update the value the key is associated with. When you do a get, you can take an argument key and simply retrieve the value of the key. This functionality does already exist in map, called put and get.

I really like the idea of assigning the exits from a String, because it makes for brief and readable code. Once that's done, I don't see why you would want to create a boolean array. If you have a String, just use it, although you might want to add some validation to prevent accidental assignment of strings containing unwanted characters:
private String exits;
public void setExits(String e) {
if (!e.matches("[NSEWUD ]*")) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
exits = e;
}
The only other thing I would add is a method canExit that you can call with a direction parameter; e.g., if (location.canExit('N')) ...:
public boolean canExit(char direction) {
return exits.indexOf(direction) >= 0;
}
I like enums, but using them here seems like over-engineering to me, which will rapidly become annoying.
**Edit**: Actually, don't do this. It answers the wrong question, and it does something which doesn't need to be done. I just noticed #TimB's answer of using a map (an EnumMap) to associate directions with rooms. It makes sense.
I still feel that if you only need to track exit existence, a String is simple and effective, and anything else is over-complicating it. However, only knowing which exits are available isn't useful. You will want to go through those exits, and unless your game has a very plain layout it won't be doable for the code to infer the correct room for each direction, so you'll need to explicitly associate each direction with another room. So there seems to be no actual use for any method "setExits" which accepts a list of directions (regardless of how it's implemented internally).

public void setExits(String e)
{
String directions="NwSEUD";
for(int i=0;i<directions.length();i++)
{
if(e.contains(""+directions.charAt(i)))
{
bexits[i]=true;
break;
}
}
}
the iterative way of doing the same thing..

Long chains of else if statements should be replaced with switch statements.
Enums are the most expressive way to store such values as long as the efficiency is not a concern. Keep in mind that enum is a class, so creation of a new enum is associated with corresponding overhead.

Java. How to skip over an initialized variable?

So im making a program and a different class refers to an int in a different class:
if (Doihavetools==0 && Stone.StoneCounter>=10 && Wood.WoodCounter>=50){
but in the other class, the int is initialized before the value is "++"ed
int WoodCounter;
#Override
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
String action = e.getActionCommand();
if (action.equals("Chop some wood")) {//ADD A .25 SECOND DELAY INBETWEEN CLICKS
Random Rand = new Random();
int W = Rand.nextInt(3) + 1;
if(W==2){
WoodCounter++;
}
Wood.setText("Click To Collect Wood : Wood:" + WoodCounter);
System.out.println(WoodCounter);
}
}
Is there a way so i can successfully initialize it and add to it at the same time? (i want to be able to continuously add to it)
Thanks in Advance,
Jack

I think what you want is for the variable to hold it's value. Try making another variable, a boolean, and before you initialize it, make a check to see if you have already done so. Also, declare this boolean in the class where
if (Doihavetools==0 && Stone.StoneCounter>=10 && Wood.WoodCounter>=50){
is present, at the top. (make it public)
so... then you can
if(initialized == false)
{
int WoodCounter;
initialized = true;
}
Either that, or just use Wood.WoodCounter instead of declaring a new variable.

You shouldn't declare a woodCounter variable unless you want to use it for something. Write wood.woodCounter to access the variable you seem to intend.

Java multi-thread scalability issue

more updates
As is explained in the selected answer, the problem is in JVM's garbage collection algorithm.
JVM uses card marking algorithm to keep track of modified references in object fields. For each reference assignment to a field, it marks an associated bit in the card to be true -- this causes a false-sharing hence blocks scaling. The details are well described in this article: https://blogs.oracle.com/dave/entry/false_sharing_induced_by_card
The option -XX:+UseCondCardMark (in Java 1.7u40 and up) mitigates the problem, and makes it scale almost perfectly.
updates
I found out (hinted from Park Eung-ju) that assigning an object into a field variable makes the difference. If I remove the assignment, it scales perfectly.
I think probably it has something to do with Java memory model -- such as, an object reference must point to a valid address before it gets visible, but I am not completely sure. Both double and Object reference (likely) have 8 bytes size on 64 bit machine, so it seems to me that assigning a double value and an Object reference should be the same in terms of synchronization.
Anyone has a reasonable explanation?
Here I have a weird Java multi-threading scalability problem.
My code simply iterates over an array (using the visitor pattern) to compute simple floating-point operations and assign the result to another array. There is no data dependency, nor synchronization, so it should scale linearly (2x faster with 2 threads, 4x faster with 4 threads).
When primitive (double) array is used, it scales very well. When object type (e.g. String) array is used, it doesn't scale at all (even though the value of the String array is not used at all...)
Here's the entire source code:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.concurrent.CyclicBarrier;
class Table1 {
public static final int SIZE1=200000000;
public static final boolean OBJ_PARAM;
static {
String type=System.getProperty("arg.type");
if ("double".equalsIgnoreCase(type)) {
System.out.println("Using primitive (double) type arg");
OBJ_PARAM = false;
} else {
System.out.println("Using object type arg");
OBJ_PARAM = true;
}
}
byte[] filled;
int[] ivals;
String[] strs;
Table1(int size) {
filled = new byte[size];
ivals = new int[size];
strs = new String[size];
Arrays.fill(filled, (byte)1);
Arrays.fill(ivals, 42);
Arrays.fill(strs, "Strs");
}
public boolean iterate_range(int from, int to, MyVisitor v) {
for (int i=from; i<to; i++) {
if (filled[i]==1) {
// XXX: Here we are passing double or String argument
if (OBJ_PARAM) v.visit_obj(i, strs[i]);
else v.visit(i, ivals[i]);
}
}
return true;
}
}
class HeadTable {
byte[] filled;
double[] dvals;
boolean isEmpty;
HeadTable(int size) {
filled = new byte[size];
dvals = new double[size];
Arrays.fill(filled, (byte)0);
isEmpty = true;
}
public boolean contains(int i, double d) {
if (filled[i]==0) return false;
if (dvals[i]==d) return true;
return false;
}
public boolean contains(int i) {
if (filled[i]==0) return false;
return true;
}
public double groupby(int i) {
assert filled[i]==1;
return dvals[i];
}
public boolean insert(int i, double d) {
if (filled[i]==1 && contains(i,d)) return false;
if (isEmpty) isEmpty=false;
filled[i]=1;
dvals[i] = d;
return true;
}
public boolean update(int i, double d) {
assert filled[i]==1;
dvals[i]=d;
return true;
}
}
class MyVisitor {
public static final int NUM=128;
int[] range = new int[2];
Table1 table1;
HeadTable head;
double diff=0;
int i;
int iv;
String sv;
MyVisitor(Table1 _table1, HeadTable _head, int id) {
table1 = _table1;
head = _head;
int elems=Table1.SIZE1/NUM;
range[0] = elems*id;
range[1] = elems*(id+1);
}
public void run() {
table1.iterate_range(range[0], range[1], this);
}
//YYY 1: with double argument, this function is called
public boolean visit(int _i, int _v) {
i = _i;
iv = _v;
insertDiff();
return true;
}
//YYY 2: with String argument, this function is called
public boolean visit_obj(int _i, Object _v) {
i = _i;
iv = 42;
sv = (String)_v;
insertDiff();
return true;
}
public boolean insertDiff() {
if (!head.contains(i)) {
head.insert(i, diff);
return true;
}
double old = head.groupby(i);
double newval=Math.min(old, diff);
head.update(i, newval);
head.insert(i, diff);
return true;
}
}
public class ParTest1 {
public static int THREAD_NUM=4;
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
if (args.length>0) {
THREAD_NUM = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
System.out.println("Setting THREAD_NUM:"+THREAD_NUM);
}
Table1 table1 = new Table1(Table1.SIZE1);
HeadTable head = new HeadTable(Table1.SIZE1);
MyVisitor[] visitors = new MyVisitor[MyVisitor.NUM];
for (int i=0; i<visitors.length; i++) {
visitors[i] = new MyVisitor(table1, head, i);
}
int taskPerThread = visitors.length / THREAD_NUM;
MyThread[] threads = new MyThread[THREAD_NUM];
CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(THREAD_NUM+1);
for (int i=0; i<THREAD_NUM; i++) {
threads[i] = new MyThread(barrier);
for (int j=taskPerThread*i; j<taskPerThread*(i+1); j++) {
if (j>=visitors.length) break;
threads[i].addVisitors(visitors[j]);
}
}
Runtime r=Runtime.getRuntime();
System.out.println("Force running gc");
r.gc(); // running GC here (excluding GC effect)
System.out.println("Running gc done");
// not measuring 1st run (excluding JIT compilation effect)
for (int i=0; i<THREAD_NUM; i++) {
threads[i].start();
}
barrier.await();
for (int i=0; i<10; i++) {
MyThread.start = true;
long s=System.currentTimeMillis();
barrier.await();
long e=System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Iter "+i+" Exec time:"+(e-s)/1000.0+"s");
}
}
}
class MyThread extends Thread {
static volatile boolean start=true;
static int tid=0;
int id=0;
ArrayList<MyVisitor> tasks;
CyclicBarrier barrier;
public MyThread(CyclicBarrier _barrier) {
super("MyThread"+(tid++));
barrier = _barrier;
id=tid;
tasks = new ArrayList(256);
}
void addVisitors(MyVisitor v) {
tasks.add(v);
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
while (!start) { ; }
for (int i=0; i<tasks.size(); i++) {
MyVisitor v=tasks.get(i);
v.run();
}
start = false;
try { barrier.await();}
catch (InterruptedException e) { break; }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
}
}
The Java code can be compiled with no dependency, and you can run it with the following command:
java -Darg.type=double -server ParTest1 2
You pass the number of worker threads as an argument (the above uses 2 threads).
After setting up the arrays (that is excluded from the measured time), it does a same operation for 10 times, printing out the execution time at each iteration.
With the above option, it uses double array, and it scales very well with 1,2,4 threads (i.e. the execution time reduces to 1/2, and 1/4), but
java -Darg.type=Object -server ParTest1 2
With this option, it uses Object (String) array, and it doesn't scale at all!
I measured the GC time, but it was insignificant (and I also forced running GC before measuring times). I have tested with Java 6 (updates 43) and Java 7 (updates 51), but it's the same.
The code has comments with XXX and YYY describing the difference when arg.type=double or arg.type=Object option is used.
Can you figure out what is going on with the String-type argument passing here?

HotSpot VM generates following assemblies for reference type putfield bytecode.
mov ref, OFFSET_OF_THE_FIELD(this) <- this puts the new value for field.
mov this, REGISTER_A
shr 0x9, REGISTER_A
movabs OFFSET_X, REGISTER_B
mov %r12b, (REGISTER_A, REGISTER_B, 1)
putfield operation is completed in 1 instruction.
but there are more instructions following.
They are "Card Marking" instructions. (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jtp11253/)
Writing reference field to every objects in a card (512 bytes), will store a value in a same memory address.
And I guess, store to same memory address from multiple cores mess up with cache and pipelines.
just add
byte[] garbage = new byte[600];
to MyVisitor definition.
then every MyVisitor instances will be spaced enough not to share card marking bit, you will see the program scales.

This is not a complete answer but may provide a hint for you.
I have changed your code
Table1(int size) {
filled = new byte[size];
ivals = new int[size];
strs = new String[size];
Arrays.fill(filled, (byte)1);
Arrays.fill(ivals, 42);
Arrays.fill(strs, "Strs");
}
to
Table1(int size) {
filled = new byte[size];
ivals = new int[size];
strs = new String[size];
Arrays.fill(filled, (byte)1);
Arrays.fill(ivals, 42);
Arrays.fill(strs, new String("Strs"));
}
after this change, the running time with 4 threads with object type array reduced.

According to http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-17.html#jls-17.7
For the purposes of the Java programming language memory model, a single write to a non-volatile long or double value is treated as two separate writes: one to each 32-bit half. This can result in a situation where a thread sees the first 32 bits of a 64-bit value from one write, and the second 32 bits from another write.
Writes and reads of volatile long and double values are always atomic.
Writes to and reads of references are always atomic, regardless of whether they are implemented as 32-bit or 64-bit values.
Assigning references are always atomic,
and double is not atomic except when it is defined as volatile.
The problem is sv can be seen by other threads and its assignment is atomic.
Therefore, wrapping visitor's member variables (i, iv, sv) using ThreadLocal will solve the problem.

"sv = (String)_v;" makes the difference. I also confirmed that the type casting is not the factor. Just accessing _v can't make the difference. Assigning some value to sv field makes the difference. But I can't explain why.

Java: Copy Constructor not going as planned

I have a bit of a problem. I'm making a Finite Automata checker.
Given an input, and the DFA, does it end on a accepting state.
My problem is creating a new DFA_State from another's target.
DFA_State state0, state1, curr_state, init_state, temp; //fine, I think
state0 = new DFA_State();
state1 = new DFA_State();
state0 = new DFA_State("State 0",true, state0, state1); //fine, I think
init_state = new DFA_State(state0); //fine, I think
but, this bit is throwing up problems.
temp = new DFA_State(curr_state.nextState(arr1[i]));
*
*
curr_state = new DFA_State(temp);
Thanks for any help,
Dave
Edit:
God I was retarded when I did this, AFAIK, I just wasn't thinking straight, added methods to set the values to the DFA_State object.
//in DFA_State class
public void set(DFA_State on_0, DFA_State on_1, Boolean is_accepting, String name){
this.on_0 = on_0;
this.on_1 = on_1;
this.is_accepting = is_accepting;
this.name = name;
}
//in main
DFA_State state0, state1, curr_state;
state0 = new DFA_State();
state1 = new DFA_State();
state0.set(state0, state1, false, "State 0");
state1.set(state1, state0, true, "State 1");
curr_state = state0;//initial state
//iterate across string input changing curr_state depending on char c
curr_state = getNextState(c);
//at end
if(curr_state.isAccepting())
System.out.println("Valid, " + curr_state.getName() + " is accepting);
else
System.out.println("Invalid, " + curr_state.getName() + " is not accepting);

In that first line, you declare the variables state0, state1, curr_state, init_state and temp as being variables of type DFA_State. However, that only declares them, they are not yet initialized. The next few lines are all okay. Second line creates a state without anything in it and assigns it to state0, so does the third line for state1. Fourth line overwrites your previous state0 assignment with a new DFA_State that has actual contents. Fifth line creates a DFA_State as a copy of state0 and assigns it to init_state.
Assuming there's nothing in between this and the first line of your second code block, now you'll get a problem. You're assigning temp with a new DFA_State that uses a copy-constructor with an argument relying on curr_state. But at that point, that variable hasn't been initialized yet. Just because it was declared doesn't mean it has somehow already been structured in memory. When you call nextState on it, there's simply no variable to resolve this to. Don't expect to get something like a pointer that will eventually point to a part of what you put in curr_state.
I'm just guessing, but from your code style I'd say you have a background in C or C++. Look into the differences between those languages and Java. If possible, I'd also advise you to make your DFA_State class immutable, since this is more reliable and will avoid mistakes. That means getting rid of the no-args constructor. Here's a reworking of it (not actually compiled, might contain errors):
package foundations.of.computing;
/**
*
* #author Kayotic
*/
class DFA_State {
private final String state;
private final DFA_State on_0;
private final DFA_State on_1;
private final boolean isAccepting;
//private DFA_State dummy;
public DFA_State(DFA_State arg) {
//this(arg.is_accepting(), arg.on0(), arg.on1());
state = arg.get_name();
isAccepting = arg.is_accepting();
on_0 = arg.on0();
on_1 = arg.on1();
}
public DFA_State(String name, Boolean accepting, DFA_State on0, DFA_State on1) {
state = name;
isAccepting = accepting;
on_0 = on0;
on_1 = on1;
}
public String get_name(){
return state;
}
public Boolean is_accepting() {
return isAccepting;
}
public DFA_State on0() {
return on_0;
}
public DFA_State on1() {
return on_1;
}
public DFA_State nextState(char i) {
if (i == '0') {
return on0();
} else if (i == '1') {
return on1();
} else {
System.out.println("Error with input");
return null;
}
}
}
Even if you can't make the instance variables final, it's best to at least make them private, since you already have methods for getting them.

There are better memory representations of DFAs than the object-oriented.
You should use a simple lookuptable:
int[] table = new int[vocabularyCount][stateCount];
Every State and every word gets a number, starting with 0.
Fill the table with the state transitions, or -1, if there is no transition. Now you just need the translation methods for the states and the words.
Heres a generic DFA algorithm:
public boolean checkSentence(String s, int[] finishes) {
// fill table
int state = 0; // assuming S0 is the start state
for (int i = 0; i < s.length(); i++) {
state = table[translate(s.charAt(i))][s];
}
for (int i = 0; i < finishes.length; i++) {
if (finishes[i] == state) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}

The program is quite poorly written. Look at this in your FoundationsOfComputing.java:
state0 = new DFA_State();
state1 = new DFA_State();
state0 = new DFA_State("State 0",true, state0, state1);
You essentially created 3 instances of state - two instances which are not initialized (first two lines in your code) - all their instance variables are null.
Then you create the third instance, which you point to the first two uninitialized ones, and assign it to state0 variable. Please note, at this point, it is only the value of the variable that changes, not the values you passed in the DFA-State constructor!!! So, what you now have in state0 is a state that points to two uninitialized states.
Now let's look at the code further down in the FoundationsOfComputing.java:
while (i < arr1.length) {//loops through array
System.out.println(i + ". scan shows " + arr1[i]);
temp = new DFA_State(curr_state.nextState(arr1[i]));
System.out.println(" "+curr_state.get_name()+ " moves onto " + temp.get_name());
curr_state = new DFA_State(temp);
i++;
}
I am guessing this throws NullPointerException - that code moves to the on_0 state of state0 - which is a state that has not been initialized (all it's instance variables are null), so in the following pass of the loop, when it calls curr_state.nextState(whatever), it would return null and you are trying to pass that to the copy-constructor which would result in NPE.

Ok so we know this is homework. Let's do this instead of telling you the answer let's try and work through it on your own. If you are seeing a NullPointerException (NPE). Grab the second line of the exception:
java.lang.NullPointerException: null
at com.blah.blah.SomeObject.someMethod(SomeArgumentType):1234 <<< here
....
That 1234 is the line number in the file that contains SomeObject. If you goto that line number you can see exactly where the NPE is being generated from. For example if line 1234 was:
this.foo = bar.indexOf("caramel");
You can easily deduce what was null. No clue? Well this can never be null so this.foo isn't the problem. If this could be null you couldn't be inside that method because this points to the instance you are currently within. Therefore, the only other statement where a variable is being dereferenced is bar so bar must be null. Let's look at your code:
temp = new DFA_State(curr_state.nextState(arr1[i]));
Say you find out the line above is tossing an exception. Well there could be several things that could be null. curr_state could be null, or arr1 could be null in which case this line would blow up. However, if arr1[i] is null or curr_state.nextState() is returning null then you won't see the NPE pointing at this line, but would be coming out of the constructor should someone try to call methods on that method parameter.
Hopefully, this will give you the tools you need to track down problems in your application by understanding exception stack traces.