binarySearch with generics and capture of - java

I have a Task:
public interface Task {
}
Then I have implementations for those:
public interface Task__Init extends Task {
void init(Element e);
}
public interface Task__Hit_Test extends Task {
boolean hit_test(Element e, float x, float y);
}
public interface Task__Draw extends Task {
void draw(Element e);
}
I also have a class that can hold a instance of those implementations:
static public class Task_Holder<T extends Task> {
public int task_id;
public Task_Type type;
public T task;
// ...
}
Then I have a class that holds those, where the last ArrayList holds all of them (all_task_holders)
static public class Implementation_Context {
public HashMap<String, ArrayList<Task_Holder<Task__Init>>> init_solvers = new HashMap<>();
public HashMap<String, ArrayList<Task_Holder<Task__Draw>>> draw_solvers = new HashMap<>();
public HashMap<String, ArrayList<Task_Holder<Task__Hit_Test>>> hit_test_solvers = new HashMap<>();
public ArrayList<Task_Holder<? extends Task>> all_task_holders = new ArrayList<>();
// ...
}
Now one of the problem arises:
static public Task_Holder<?> find_task_holder(int task_id) {
Comparator<Task_Holder<?>> comparator = (a, b)-> {
if (a.task_id < b.task_id) return -1;
if (a.task_id > b.task_id) return 1;
return 0;
};
Collections.sort(ctx.implementation.all_task_holders, comparator);
Task_Holder<?> key = new Task_Holder<>();
key.task_id = task_id;
int index = Collections.binarySearch(ctx.implementation.all_task_holders, key);
for (Task_Holder<?> th : ctx.implementation.all_task_holders) {
if (th.task_id == task_id) {
return th;
}
}
assert false; // should we find things that are not there?
return null;
}
For the binarySearch I get (I make it a codeblock here, else stackoverflow removes words for some reason?):
The method binarySearch(List<? extends Comparable<? super T>>,
T) in the type Collections is not applicable for the arguments
(ArrayList<sfjl_ui.Task_Holder<?>>, sfjl_ui.Task_Holder<capture#6-of
?>)
I have no clue how to fix this. Every attempt breaks other things (for example I break the sort that's 3 lines higher).
It feels like paying off credit card debts with other credit cards, you never win.
How can I fix this?

Pass the comparator as an additional argument:
int index = Collections.binarySearch(ctx.all_task_holders, key, comparator);

Related

Template method pattern in java

I have assignment in java ,I need help please.
I tried to solve it but I have some problem that can't understand them.
Assignment is:
In this exercise, use the Template method pattern to define an abstract class Filter with a public method filter (the template method) that calls the method accept (the hook method) that can be implemented in different ways in the different concrete classes. Write a test program by extending the class Filter and defining accept so that only strings of at most three characters are accepted.
public abstract class Filter<T> {
public abstract T[] filter(T[] list);
public abstract boolean accept(T val);
}
public class FilterTest<T> extends Filter<T> {
private int capacity = 0;
public FilterTest(int cap) {
this.capacity = cap;
}
#Override
public T[] filter(T[] list1) {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
T[] finalList = (T[]) Array.newInstance(list1.getClass().getComponentType(), capacity);
int counter = 0;
for (T t : list1) {
if (accept(t)) {
finalList[counter] = t;
counter++;
}
}
return finalList;
}
public void printArray(T[] list2) {
for (int i = 0; i < list2.length; i++) {
if (list2[i] != null) {
System.out.print(list2[i] + " ");
}
}
System.out.println();
}
#Override
public boolean accept(T val) {
return String.valueOf(val).length() > 0 &&
String.valueOf(val).length() <= 3;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
FilterTest<String> filterTest = new FilterTest<>(8);
String[] lists = {
"Hi", "here", "is", "the", "AOOP", "course", "at", "University"
};
System.out.print("My original list is: ");
filterTest.printArray(lists);
System.out.print(" The filtered list is: ");
String[] filteredList = filterTest.filter(lists);
filterTest.printArray(filteredList);
}
}
Here is comment from my teacher:
"not correct, only the accept method should be abstract in the Filter class, the filter method should be already implemented in the Filter class and not be abstract all implementation will be the same, only the accept method changes for different filters)".
I don't understand what should I do now, how the code will be correct.
help please,
Thanks
I assume that Filter should look something like this
public abstract class Filter<T> {
public T[] filter(T[] list1) {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
T[] finalList = (T[]) Array.newInstance(list1.getClass().getComponentType(), capacity);
int counter = 0;
for (T t : list1) {
if (accept(t)) {
finalList[counter] = t;
counter++;
}
}
return finalList;
}
public abstract boolean accept(T val);
}
You can even declare Filter<T> as an interface and have a default implementation for filter. Have a look here

Generalized List as a parameter for a method

Say I have a simple class like this:
public class BasicObject {
private String name;
public BasicObject (String str) {
name = str;
}
public String getName () {
return name;
}
}
then I have some simple method in the main class like this:
private static int findInList (____ list, String str) {
for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
if (list.get(i).getName().equalsIgnoreCase(str)) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
It would work if I put List<BasicObject> on the blank for the parameter list, but what if I have other objects? Can I generalize the list so this would work with other objects besides BasicObject? If so, how can I get the type of the objects in the list?
Edit: What if I have another class from an imported package that I can still put in a list but I don't want to change what it implements? Is there a way to have a generalized findInList that includes those too? Or do I have to just make another method for that? I'm fine with just making another method, but I'm curious if this way is possible.
You can use an interface structure such as this
Doing so provides a common call structure, so it is predictable what can be called from the implementations
public interface IShape {
String getName();
}
public class Square implements IShape {
private String name = "Square";
#Override
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
public class Circle implements IShape {
private String name = "Circle";
#Override
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args){
List<IShape> list = new ArrayList<>();
list.add(new Square());
list.add(new Circle());
list.add(new Circle());
list.add(new Square());
list.add(new IShape() {
#Override
public String getName() {
return "Triangle";
}
});
for(IShape test : list){
System.out.println(test.getName());
}
}
this produces an output like this
Square
Circle
Circle
Square
Triangle
as answer to edit
Yes, but requires reflection, if help is needed on this, please open a new question after proberly trying to solve the issue yourself.
Have you tried checking generics? It is what you're looking for, your method signature should look like below:
public <T> List<T> findInList (Class<T> list, String str) {}
This will work if all objects have common parent (BasicObject or any other class which have getName() method).
private static int findInList (List<? extends BasicObject> list, String str) {
for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
if (list.get(i).getName().equalsIgnoreCase(str)) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
Your code relies on the list having an element type with a getName method that is visible to the compiler. Another way is to use lambdas. For example,
public interface Named {
String getName();
}
public class UseNamed<T extends Named> {
public int findIndex(List<T> nameds, String search) {
for (int len = nameds.size(), ix = 0; ix < len; ++ix) {
final Named named = names.get(ix);
if (search.equalsIgnoreCase(named.getName())) {
return ix;
}
}
return -1;
}
One approach with lambdas is to pass a comparer to findIndex:
public <T, K> int findIndex(List<T> stuff, K search,
BiFunction<T, K, Boolean> compares) {...}
and call it with
List<Named> stuff = ...;
String search = ...;
int index = findIndex(stuff, search,
(named, s) -> s.equalsIgnoreCase(named.getName()));

Programming - Java - Disassociate the merge algorithm from the actions

Currently I'm developing a merge between two sorted collections of elements of type T (the type is not important as long you provide a means to compare the Type, for example, in Java, A Comparator<T> will do the work).
What I don't want is to necessarily merge both data structures involved in the merge process (I don't want to get an entire new structure holding both elements merged). What I want is to have some kind of observer of the merge process in order to define what to do with each merged element in another class. For example, a would like to have something like this:
merger.merge(leftCollection,rightCollection,theComparator,theObserver).
Where the observer is a object watching the merge algorithm and gets notified of the actions, i mean :
interface MergeObserver<T> {
/**
* Triggered when the merge algorithm decides to merge only the left entry.
* This case correspond to the case when there is no equivalent entry on the right collection.
*/
public void mergeLeft(T entry);
/**
* Triggered when the merge algorithm decides to merge both entries.
* This case correspond to the case when there exists the same entry on both collections.
*/
public void mergeBoth(T left, T right);
/**
* Triggered when the merge algorithm decides to merge only the right entry.
* This case correspond to the case when there is no equivalent entry on the left collection.
*/
public void mergeRight(T entry);
}
I have already make my implementation for sorted collections, but... I would like to share this feeling, and here comes the question, about if someone has thought of this before, specially in Guava Libraries, and what are the proper terminology employed.
The two most commonly used patterns for separating the traversal of a data structure and the processing of the data are the visitor pattern and the iterator pattern. Both of those patterns can be applied not only to real data structures that are present in memory but also to "virtual" data structures (which is probably not the proper term). e.g. the method List.subList in the Java API creates a view of a part of the list. So the List object returned by it is just a reference to part of another lists data. Of course you can also combine data structures. You could for example have a method that takes as arguments two iterators and returns a new iterator that merges the two without using any additional memory because that merged list is not actually present in RAM.
If you used Scala instead of Java you would have lots of methods available that can transform iterators in many different ways to achieve effects like this.
import java.util.function.Predicate;
import java.util.function.BiPredicate;
import java.util.function.Supplier;
import java.util.function.Consumer;
import java.util.stream.IntStream;
import java.util.NoSuchElementException;
interface MyIterator<T> extends Iterator<T> {
class Peekable<T> {
private final MyIterator<T> iter;
private T next = null;
private boolean isNextBuffered = false;
private boolean atEnd = false;
private Peekable(MyIterator<T> iter) {
this.iter = iter;
}
private void advance() {
if(atEnd) throw new NoSuchElementException();
if(iter.hasNext()) {
next = iter.next();
isNextBuffered = true;
} else {
atEnd = true;
}
}
private boolean hasNext() {
if(atEnd) return false;
if(!isNextBuffered) advance();
return !atEnd;
}
private T next() {
T next = peek();
advance();
return next;
}
private T peek() {
if(hasNext()) return next;
throw new NoSuchElementException();
}
}
static <T> MyIterator<T> of(BooleanSupplier hasNext, Supplier<T> next) {
return new MyIterator<T>() {
public boolean hasNext() {
return hasNext.getAsBoolean();
}
public T next() {
return next.get();
}
};
}
static <T> MyIterator<T> of(Iterator<T> iter) {
return of(iter::hasNext, iter::next);
}
static MyIterator<Integer> range(int start, int end) {
int[] value = {start};
return of(() -> value[0] < end, () -> value[0]++);
}
default <R> MyIterator<R> map(Function<? super T,? extends R> mapper) {
return of(this::hasNext, () -> mapper.apply(this.next()));
}
default MyIterator<T> filter(Predicate<? super T> predicate) {
Peekable<T> iter = new Peekable<T>(this);
return new MyIterator<T>() {
public boolean hasNext() {
while(iter.hasNext() && !predicate.test(iter.peek())) iter.advance();
return iter.hasNext();
}
public T next() {
hasNext();
return iter.next();
}
};
}
default MyIterator<T> merge(MyIterator<T> other, BiPredicate<? super T,? super T> smallerEqual) {
Peekable<T> iter1 = new Peekable<T>(this);
Peekable<T> iter2 = new Peekable<T>(other);
return of(() -> iter1.hasNext() || iter2.hasNext(),
() -> {
if(!iter1.hasNext()) return iter2.next();
else if(!iter2.hasNext()) return iter1.next();
else {
T elem1 = iter1.peek();
T elem2 = iter2.peek();
return smallerEqual.test(elem1, elem2) ? iter1.next() : iter2.next();
}
});
}
}
interface MyIterable<T> extends Iterable<T> {
default Iterator<T> iterator() {
return myIterator();
}
MyIterator<T> myIterator();
static <T> MyIterable<T> of(Supplier<MyIterator<T>> myIterator) {
return new MyIterable<T>() {
public MyIterator<T> myIterator() {
return myIterator.get();
}
};
}
static <T> MyIterable<T> of(Iterable<T> iterable) {
return of(() -> MyIterator.of(iterable.iterator()));
}
static MyIterable<Integer> range(int start, int end) {
return of(() -> MyIterator.range(start, end));
}
default <R> MyIterable<R> map(Function<? super T,? extends R> mapper) {
return of(() -> this.myIterator().map(mapper));
}
default MyIterable<T> filter(Predicate<? super T> predicate) {
return of(() -> this.myIterator().filter(predicate));
}
default MyIterable<T> merge(MyIterable<T> other, BiPredicate<? super T,? super T> smallerEqual) {
return of(() -> this.myIterator().merge(other.myIterator(), smallerEqual));
}
}
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyIterable<Integer> iterable = MyIterable.range(0, 10);
MyIterable<Integer> iter1 = iterable.map(x -> 2 * x).filter(x -> x < 10);
MyIterable<Integer> iter2 = iterable.map(x -> 2 * x + 1).filter(x -> x < 10);
MyIterable<Integer> iterMerged = iter1.merge(iter2, (x, y) -> x <= y);
iter1.forEach(System.out::println);
System.out.println();
iter2.forEach(System.out::println);
System.out.println();
iterMerged.forEach(System.out::println);
}
}
What would probably be more idiomatically "java" is to write your merger with a listener:
public interface Merger {
public Collection<T> merge(Collection<T> left, Collection<T> right, Comparator comparator);
public void addListener(Observer observer);
public void notifyListener(Message message);
}
public interface Observer {
public void notify(Message message);
}

Unique classes in generic list

I have a generic class with a generic list in it. I want to ensure that the generic list only contains unique classes.
What I have done so far is to compare the class names with reflection (getClass()). But I think that's not a clean solution. Are there any better practices to check?
public class MyGenericClass<T extends MyGenericClass.MyInterface> {
private List<T> members = new ArrayList<>(0);
public void add(T t) {
final boolean[] classInMembers = {false};
members.forEach(member -> {
if (member.getClass().getName().equals(t.getClass().getName())) {
classInMembers[0] = true;
}
});
if (!classInMembers[0]) {
members.add(t);
}
}
public interface MyInterface {
void doSomething(String text);
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyGenericClass<MyGenericClass.MyInterface> myGenericClass = new MyGenericClass<>();
myGenericClass.add(new Performer1());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer2());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3()); // should not be inserted!
}
private static class Performer1 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 1!";
}
}
private static class Performer2 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 2!";
}
}
private static class Performer3 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 3!";
}
}
}
You could subclass a java.util.Set interface implementation. It will likely be easiest to subclass java.util.AbstractSet.
By default 'Set' will compare objects by their .equals() method - In your case, this is not sufficient. You will need to override the contains method to ensure that only instances of a unique class are added.
In your overrideen contains, it's probably the same / easier to compare class instances rather than their stringified package name
I.e. use a.getClass() == b.getClass(), rather than a.getClass().getName()
Don't use a List, use a java.util.Set instead.
A collection that contains no duplicate elements. More formally, sets contain no pair of elements e1 and e2 such that e1.equals(e2), and at most one null element.
If the iteration order is important or if you want to use a custom Comparator, the TreeSet implementation can be used:
A NavigableSet implementation based on a TreeMap. The elements are ordered using their natural ordering, or by a Comparator provided at set creation time, depending on which constructor is used.
Example of a Set using a Comparator:
class MyComparator implements Comparator<Object> {
#Override
public int compare(Object e1, Object e2) {
if (e1.getClass() == e2.getClass())
return 0;
//if you wish to have some extra sort order
return e1.getClass().getName().compareTo(e2.getClass().getName());
}
}
. . .
Set mySet = new TreeSet<Object>(new MyComparator());
mySet.add(new Object());
mySet.add(new Object());//same class already in set
mySet.add("wtf");
//mySet.size() is now 2 - the second "new Object()" was not inserted due to the comparator check
Why so complicated?
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Class<?> helloClass = "Hello".getClass();
final Class<?> worldClass = "World".getClass();
final Class<?> intClass = Integer.class;
System.out.println(helloClass.equals(worldClass)); // -> true
System.out.println(helloClass.equals(intClass)); // -> false
}
}
You could maintain a roster of members in a Set.
public static class MyGenericClass<T extends MyGenericClass.MyInterface> {
private List<T> members = new ArrayList<>(0);
// Add this.
private Set<Class<?>> roster = new HashSet<>();
public void add(T t) {
if (!roster.contains(t.getClass())) {
members.add(t);
roster.add(t.getClass());
}
}
private void soundOff() {
for (T t : members) {
t.doSomething();
}
}
public interface MyInterface {
void doSomething();
}
}
private static class Performer implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
final int n;
public Performer(int n) {
this.n = n;
}
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Hi, I am a " + this.getClass().getSimpleName() + "(" + n + ")");
}
}
private static class Performer1 extends Performer {
public Performer1(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
private static class Performer2 extends Performer {
public Performer2(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
private static class Performer3 extends Performer {
public Performer3(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
public void test() {
MyGenericClass<MyGenericClass.MyInterface> myGenericClass = new MyGenericClass<>();
myGenericClass.add(new Performer1(1));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer2(2));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3(3));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3(4)); // should not be inserted!
myGenericClass.soundOff();
}
You could implement a Wrapper which provides the necessary comparison and add the wrapped instance to the set. This way you don't have to override equals and hashcode in your concrete Performer classes and you don't have to subclass a concrete Set implementation (which you are coupled to. When you subclass a HashSet, you have to use that concrete class. But what if you want to use a LinkedHashSet at some point? You have to override LinkedHashSet as well) , which may be fragile since you have to make sure that the overridden method is consistent with the rest of the class.
class MyGenericClass<T extends MyInterface> {
private Set<ClassCompareWrapper<T>> members = new HashSet<>();
public void add(T t) {
members.add(new ClassCompareWrapper<T>(t));
}
}
class ClassCompareWrapper<T> {
T t;
public ClassCompareWrapper(T t) {
this.t = t;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o)
return true;
if (!(o instanceof ClassCompareWrapper))
return false;
ClassCompareWrapper<?> that = (ClassCompareWrapper<?>) o;
return Objects.equals(t.getClass(), that.t.getClass());
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(t.getClass());
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Wrapper{" +
"t=" + t +
'}';
}
}
Here are a few other ideas.
Using streams:
public void add(T t) {
if (!members.stream().anyMatch(m -> m.getClass() == t.getClass())) {
members.add(t);
}
}
Using AbstractSet and HashMap:
class ClassSet<E> extends AbstractSet<E> {
private final Map<Class<?>, E> map = new HashMap<>();
#Override
public boolean add(E e) {
// this can be
// return map.putIfAbsent(e.getClass(), e) != null;
// in Java 8
Class<?> clazz = e.getClass();
if (map.containsKey(clazz)) {
return false;
} else {
map.put(clazz, e);
return true;
}
}
#Override
public boolean remove(Object o) {
return map.remove(o.getClass()) != null;
}
#Override
public boolean contains(Object o) {
return map.containsKey(o.getClass());
}
#Override
public int size() {
return map.size();
}
#Override
public Iterator<E> iterator() {
return map.values().iterator();
}
}
A HashMap could also be used without wrapping it in a Set. The Set interface is defined around equals and hashCode, so any implementation which deviates from this is technically non-contractual. Additionally, you might want to use LinkedHashMap if the values are iterated often.

Set ordered by "add() count"

I'm trying to implement a Set which is ordered by the count of additions like this:
public class App {
public static void main(String args[]) {
FrequencyOrderedTreeSet<String> set = new FrequencyOrderedTreeSet<String>();
set.add("bar");
set.add("foo");
set.add("foo");
Iterator<String> i = set.iterator();
while (i.hasNext()) {
System.out.print(i.next());
}
// prints "foobar"
}
}
I've created a protected class FrequencyOrderedTreeSet.Element which implements Comparable and has a T entry and an int frequency property and extended TreeSet<FrequencyOrderedTreeSet.Element> with FrequencyOrderedTreeSet<T> and overrode the compareTo and equals methods on the Element.
One problem is that I can't override the add() method because of type erasure problems and also I can't call instanceof Element in the equals method, because in case object given to it is an Element, I have to compare their entries, but if it's not, I have to compare the object itself to this.entry.
In the add method I create a new element, find the element with the same entry in the set, set the frequency on the new element to "old+1", remove the old one and add the new one. I'm not even sure this is the best way to do this or if it would work even because the other problems I described.
The question is: what's the best way to implement such data structure? In case I'm somehow on the right track - how can I circumvent the problems I've mentioned above?
Here's a basic implementation. It's not the most optimal and will take some more work if you want to implement the full Set interface.
public class FrequencySet<T> implements Iterable<T>
{
private TreeSet<T> set;
private HashMap<T, Integer> elements = new HashMap<T, Integer>();
public FrequencySet()
{
set = new TreeSet<T>(new Comparator<T>()
{
public int compare(T o1, T o2)
{
return elements.get(o2)-elements.get(o1);
}
});
}
public void add(T t)
{
Integer i = elements.get(t);
elements.put(t, i == null ? 1 : i+1);
set.remove(t);
set.add(t);
}
public Iterator<T> iterator() {return set.iterator();}
public static void main(String [] args)
{
FrequencySet<String> fset = new FrequencySet<String>();
fset.add("foo");
fset.add("bar");
fset.add("foo");
for (String s : fset)
System.out.print(s);
System.out.println();
fset.add("bar");
fset.add("bar");
for (String s : fset)
System.out.print(s);
}
}
The key is in the add method. We change the counter for the given object (which changes the relation order), remove it from the backing set and put it back in.
This works the other way (count is increased when you use GET)
#SuppressWarnings("rawtypes")
final class Cache implements Comparable {
private String key;
private String value;
private int counter;
public String getValue() {
counter++;
return value;
}
private void setValue(String value) { this.value = value; }
public String getKey() { return key; }
private void setKey(String key) { this.key = key; }
public int getCounter() { return counter; }
public void setCounter(int counter) { this.counter = counter; }
public Cache(String key, String value) {
this.setKey(key);
this.setValue(value);
setCounter(0);
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Object arg0) {
if(!(arg0 instanceof Cache)) {
throw new ClassCastException();
}
return this.getCounter() - ((Cache) arg0).getCounter();
}
}

Categories