public class Bus{
private int seats;
private List<People> currentPeople;
public Bus(int seats){
this.seats = seats;
}
public void passengers(List<People> boarders, List<People> deboarders){
this.currentPeople.remove(deboarders);
this.currentPeople.add(boarders);
}
I'm trying to create a list of people on the bus. I'm trying to remove deboarders(alighting passengers) from the list and add the boarders(boarding passengers). But Java won't let me add the boarders to the currentPeople list. People is a class which stores the name and ticket number of the passanger. Any help on this? I've been trying to solve this for hours.
To add a collection of objects to a list you need to use addAll:
this.currentPeople.addAll(boarders);
To remove a collection of objects from a list you need to use removeAll:
this.currentPeople.removeAll(deboarders);
Be careful, in order to compare and remove the right elements from the list, removeAll uses equals method. So you should implement equals method in your People class.
EDIT:
equals method for People class:
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
People people = (People) o;
if (ticketNumber != people.ticketNumber) return false;
return name != null ? name.equals(people.name) : people.name == null;
}
Don't forget to initialize currentPeople list, otherwise you will get NullPointerException.
Try removeAll() and addAll() methods because you are passing a Collection as a parameter.
Do not forget " ; " at the end of the line inside your constructor.
this.currentPeople.removeAll(deboarders);
this.currentPeople.addAll(boarders);
Change add to addAll and likewise for remove.
As Federico points out in comments, assuming People has equals method implemented.
Related
I am creating a List that converts a List of Observations(Registration registration, Time time) into a List containing only Registrations, however this list cannot contain duplicates and I'm battling to ensure that duplicates don't occur.
public List<Registration> getVehicles(){
List<Registration> rtnList = new ArrayList<Registration>();
for (Observation obs:observationsList){
if (rtnList.contains(obs.getIdentifier())){
}
else
rtnList.add(obs.getIdentifier());
}
return rtnList;
}
This is what I have got, but duplicates still occur.
With observations such as the following:
obsList.record (new Registration("CA 976-543"), new Time("13:15:03"));
obsList.record (new Registration("BCD 123 MP"), new Time("13:21:47"));
obsList.record (new Registration("CA 976-543"), new Time("13:35:50"));
The .equals() method for the Registration class is:
public boolean equals(Registration other){
if (getIdentifier().equals(other.getIdentifier()))
return true;
return false;
}
I would like the output of obsList.getVehicles to be :
[CA 976-543, BCD 123 MP]
But instead I am getting:
[CA 976-543, BCD 123 MP, CA 976-543]
The contains method uses the elements' equals method. For lists, it essentially iterates over all the elements of the list and checks if that element is equal to the value passed.
According to your last comment, you haven't properly overridden it. equals takes an Obejct argument. In fact, instead of overriding the method, you've overloaded it. Using the #Override annotation would have, in fact, caused a compilation error on this method and made the mistake clearer:
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) { // Note the argument type
if (!(o instanceof Registration)) {
return false;
}
Registration other = (Registration) o;
return getIdentifier().equals(other.getIdentifier()) &&
getProvince().equals(other.getProvince());
}
I need help with removing just added element from the arrayList.
I have a private static ArrayList<Position> positions = new ArrayList<>() to which I'm adding objects of the class Position with parameters name, quantity, and price.
Than I have a method adding objects to the list, and in case if the same product is added for the second time, it is supposed to add the quantity to the first object of that name and remove that second one.
So far I have this method:
public void addPosition(Position p) {
for (Position poz: positions) {
if (poz.getname().equals(p.getname())) {
poz.setquantity(poz.getquantity() + p.getquantity());
}
} positions.add(p);
}
Adding quantities works just fine, but I've got problem with removing the element with recurring name.
Please help.
You shouldn't add duplicate items and then remove them. Just declare a method which handles adding items correctly; that is, it adds the item if it does not exist, and it updates the quantity if it does exist.
It should look like this:
public void addPosition(Position addition) {
//flag to track whether the new item exists in the list
boolean itemExists = false;
//go through the list looking for an item with the passed name to update
for (Position existing : positions) {
if (existing.getName().equals(addition.getName())) {
existing.setQuantity(existing.getQuantity() + addition.getQuantity());
itemExists = true;
}
}
//if no matching item was found, add the new item
if (!itemExists) {
positions.add(addition);
}
}
The above should work. If you care about performance, it might be better to use a HashMap so you can look up the Position by name instead of looping through the whole list each time.
If you are interested to know other data Structure , i want suggest you HashSet , by default it will not insert duplicates for primitive objects .
In your case the only thing you need to do to your Position class , is to add
equals and hashCode methods . As getters and setters Eclipse for example will create by him self .
hashCode()
As you know this method provides the has code of an object. Basically the default implementation of hashCode() provided by Object is derived by mapping the memory address to an integer value. If look into the source of Object class , you will find the following code for the hashCode. public native int hashCode(); It indicates that hashCode is the native implementation which provides the memory address to a certain extent. However it is possible to override the hashCode method in your implementation class.
equals()
This particular method is used to make equal comparison between two objects. There are two types of comparisons in Java. One is using “= =” operator and another is “equals()”. I hope that you know the difference between this two. More specifically the “.equals()” refers to equivalence relations. So in broad sense you say that two objects are equivalent they satisfy the “equals()” condition. If you look into the source code of Object class you will find the following code for the equals() method.
Here a complete working example ( you can modify your class following this cose)
import java.util.HashSet;
public class Zhashset{
private int num;
public Zhashset(){
}
public int getNum() {
return num;
}
public void setNum(int num) {
this.num = num;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + num;
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
Zhashset other = (Zhashset) obj;
if (num != other.num)
return false;
return true;
}
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
HashSet<Zhashset> hs = new HashSet<Zhashset>();
hs.add(new Zhashset());
hs.add(new Zhashset());
for(Zhashset item : hs)
System.out.println(item.getNum());
}
}
Output will be : 0 written only once.
Consider that I would like to create a class which manages a TreeSet of custom objects with two keys: A String instance identifier, and a long order identifier. The Long value would be used to determine the order of the elements in the list, while the string would be used to determine if two of these elements are duplicates. To clarify, here is what the methods would look like for the custom object
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if(o == null)
return false;
if(!(o instanceof CustomObject))
return false;
//Determined by string_id values ONLY. Used in TreeSet implementation
CustomObject obj = (CustomObject) o;
return obj.string_id.equals(this.string_id);
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Object another) {
if(another == null || !(another instanceof CustomObject))
return -1;
CustomObject other = (CustomObject) another;
if(other.long_id > this.long_id)
return -1;
else if(other.long_id < this.long_id)
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
Can my TreeSet function this way? I ask, because while testing this, I've found that my implementation only keeps the latest entry, and discards the rest. I'm looking to find out if this is simply an error with my implementation, or if I'm not properly using the TreeSet class and need to refactor my approach.
Problem Statement
I have two Collections of the same type of object that I want to compare. In this case, I want to compare them based on an attribute that does not factor into equals() for the Objects. In my example, I'm using ranked collections of Names for instance:
public class Name {
private String name;
private int weightedRank;
//getters & setters
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
return this.name.equals(obj.name); //Naive implementation just to show
//equals is based on the name field.
}
}
I want to compare the two Collections to assert that, for position i in each Collection, the weightedRank of each Name at that position is the same value. I did some Googling but didn't find a suitable method in Commons Collections or any other API so I came up with the following:
public <T> boolean comparatorEquals(Collection<T> col1, Collection<T> col2,
Comparator<T> c)
{
if (col1 == null)
return col2 == null;
if (col2 == null)
return false;
if (col1.size() != col2.size())
return false;
Iterator<T> i1 = col1.iterator(), i2 = col2.iterator();
while(i1.hasNext() && i2.hasNext()) {
if (c.compare(i1.next(), i2.next()) != 0) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Question
Is there another way to do this? Did I miss an obvious method from Commons Collections?
Related
I also spotted this question on SO which is similar though in that case I'm thinking overriding equals() makes a little more sense.
Edit
Something very similar to this will be going into a release of Apache Commons Collections in the near future (at the time of this writing). See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-446.
You could use the Guava Equivalence class in order to decouple the notions of "comparing" and "equivalence". You would still have to write your comparing method (AFAIK Guava does not have it) that accepts an Equivalence subclass instead of the Comparator, but at least your code would be less confusing, and you could compare your collections based on any equivalence criteria.
Using a collection of equivance-wrapped objects (see the wrap method in Equivalence) would be similar to the Adapter-based solution proposed by sharakan, but the equivalence implementation would be decoupled from the adapter implementation, allowing you to easily use multiple Equivalence criteria.
You can use new isEqualCollection method added to CollectionUtils since version 4. This method uses external comparsion mechanism provided by Equator interface implementation. Please, check this javadocs: CollectionUtils.isEqualCollection(...) and Equator.
I'm not sure this way is actually better, but it is "another way"...
Take your original two collections, and create new ones containing an Adapter for each base object. The Adapter should have .equals() and .hashCode() implemented as being based on Name.calculateWeightedRank(). Then you can use normal Collection equality to compare the collections of Adapters.
* Edit *
Using Eclipse's standard hashCode/equals generation for the Adapter. Your code would just call adaptCollection on each of your base collections, then List.equals() the two results.
public class Adapter {
public List<Adapter> adaptCollection(List<Name> names) {
List<Adapter> adapters = new ArrayList<Adapter>(names.size());
for (Name name : names) {
adapters.add(new Adapter(name));
}
return adapters;
}
private final int name;
public Adapter(Name name) {
this.name = name.getWeightedResult();
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + name;
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
Adapter other = (Adapter) obj;
if (name != other.name)
return false;
return true;
}
}
EDIT: Removed old answer.
Another option that you have is creating an interface called Weighted that could look like this:
public interface Weighted {
int getWeightedRank();
}
Then have your Name class implement this interface. Then you could change your method to look like this:
public <T extends Weighted> boolean weightedEquals(Collection<T> col1, Collection<T> col2)
{
if (col1 == null)
return col2 == null;
if (col2 == null)
return false;
if (col1.size() != col2.size())
return false;
Iterator<T> i1 = col1.iterator(), i2 = col2.iterator();
while(i1.hasNext() && i2.hasNext()) {
if (i1.next().getWeightedRank() != i2.next().getWeightedRank()) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Then as you find additional classes that need to be weighted and compared you can put them in your collection and they could be compared with each other as well. Just an idea.
Why cannot I retrieve an element from a HashSet?
Consider my HashSet containing a list of MyHashObjects with their hashCode() and equals() methods overridden correctly. I was hoping to construct a MyHashObject myself, and set the relevant hash code properties to certain values.
I can query the HashSet to see if there "equivalent" objects in the set using the contains() method. So even though contains() returns true for the two objects, they may not be == true.
How come then there isn’t any get() method similar to how the contains() works?
What is the thinking behind this API decision?
If you know what element you want to retrieve, then you already have the element. The only question for a Set to answer, given an element, is whether it contains() it or not.
If you want to iterator over the elements, just use a Set.iterator().
It sounds like what you're trying to do is designate a canonical element for an equivalence class of elements. You can use a Map<MyObject,MyObject> to do this. See this Stack Overflow question or this one for a discussion.
If you are really determined to find an element that .equals() your original element with the constraint that you must use the HashSet, I think you're stuck with iterating over it and checking equals() yourself. The API doesn't let you grab something by its hash code. So you could do:
MyObject findIfPresent(MyObject source, HashSet<MyObject> set)
{
if (set.contains(source)) {
for (MyObject obj : set) {
if (obj.equals(source))
return obj;
}
}
return null;
}
It is brute-force and O(n) ugly, but if that's what you need to do...
You can use HashMap<MyHashObject, MyHashObject> instead of HashSet<MyHashObject>.
Calling containsKey() on your "reconstructed" MyHashObject will first hashCode() - check the collection, and if a duplicate hashcode is hit, finally equals() - check your "reconstructed" against the original, at which you can retrieve the original using get()
Complexity is O(1) but the downside is you will likely have to override both equals() and hashCode() methods.
It sounds like you're essentially trying to use the hash code as a key in a map (which is what HashSets do behind the scenes). You could just do it explicitly, by declaring HashMap<Integer, MyHashObject>.
There is no get for HashSets because typically the object you would supply to the get method as a parameter is the same object you would get back.
If you know the order of elements in your Set, you can retrieve them by converting the Set to an Array. Something like this:
Set mySet = MyStorageObject.getMyStringSet();
Object[] myArr = mySet.toArray();
String value1 = myArr[0].toString();
String value2 = myArr[1].toString();
The idea that you need to get the reference to the object that is contained inside a Set object is common. It can be archived by 2 ways:
Use HashSet as you wanted, then:
public Object getObjectReference(HashSet<Xobject> set, Xobject obj) {
if (set.contains(obj)) {
for (Xobject o : set) {
if (obj.equals(o))
return o;
}
}
return null;
}
For this approach to work, you need to override both hashCode() and equals(Object o) methods
In the worst scenario we have O(n)
Second approach is to use TreeSet
public Object getObjectReference(TreeSet<Xobject> set, Xobject obj) {
if (set.contains(obj)) {
return set.floor(obj);
}
return null;
}
This approach gives O(log(n)), more efficient.
You don't need to override hashCode for this approach but you have to implement Comparable interface. ( define function compareTo(Object o)).
One of the easiest ways is to convert to Array:
for(int i = 0; i < set.size(); i++) {
System.out.println(set.toArray()[i]);
}
If I know for sure in my application that the object is not used in search in any of the list or hash data structure and not used equals method elsewhere except the one used indirectly in hash data structure while adding. Is it advisable to update the existing object in set in equals method. Refer the below code. If I add the this bean to HashSet, I can do group aggregation on the matching object on key (id). By this way I am able to achieve aggregation functions such as sum, max, min, ... as well. If not advisable, please feel free to share me your thoughts.
public class MyBean {
String id,
name;
double amountSpent;
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return id.hashCode();
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if(obj!=null && obj instanceof MyBean ) {
MyBean tmpObj = (MyBean) obj;
if(tmpObj.id!=null && tmpObj.id.equals(this.id)) {
tmpObj.amountSpent += this.amountSpent;
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}
First of all, convert your set to an array. Then, get the item by indexing the array.
Set uniqueItem = new HashSet();
uniqueItem.add("0");
uniqueItem.add("1");
uniqueItem.add("0");
Object[] arrayItem = uniqueItem.toArray();
for(int i = 0; i < uniqueItem.size(); i++) {
System.out.println("Item " + i + " " + arrayItem[i].toString());
}
If you could use List as a data structure to store your data, instead of using Map to store the result in the value of the Map, you can use following snippet and store the result in the same object.
Here is a Node class:
private class Node {
public int row, col, distance;
public Node(int row, int col, int distance) {
this.row = row;
this.col = col;
this.distance = distance;
}
public boolean equals(Object o) {
return (o instanceof Node &&
row == ((Node) o).row &&
col == ((Node) o).col);
}
}
If you store your result in distance variable and the items in the list are checked based on their coordinates, you can use the following to change the distance to a new one with the help of lastIndexOf method as long as you only need to store one element for each data:
List<Node> nodeList;
nodeList = new ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList(new Node(1, 2, 1), new Node(3, 4, 5)));
Node tempNode = new Node(1, 2, 10);
if(nodeList.contains(tempNode))
nodeList.get(nodeList.lastIndexOf(tempNode)).distance += tempNode.distance;
It is basically reimplementing Set whose items can be accessed and changed.
If you want to have a reference to the real object using the same performance as HashSet, I think the best way is to use HashMap.
Example (in Kotlin, but similar in Java) of finding an object, changing some field in it if it exists, or adding it in case it doesn't exist:
val map = HashMap<DbData, DbData>()
val dbData = map[objectToFind]
if(dbData!=null){
++dbData.someIntField
}
else {
map[dbData] = dbData
}