Related
I'm trying to create a SecureDataContainer with HashMap so defined:
HashMap: ()>
Where KeyCouple is a class defined by me which contains the couple to access to the Vector associated to that couple.
Now when i create a couple of HashMap in this method
private Map<KeyCouple,Vector<E>> DBUsers;
public void createUser(String Id, String passw) throws
UserAlreadyPresent {
if(Id.isEmpty() || passw.isEmpty()) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
if(existsUser(Id)) throw new UserAlreadyPresent(Id);
KeyCouple u = new KeyCouple(Id, passw);
DBUsers.put(u, new Vector<>());
}
Now, in main class, I Run the following code:
private static void testContainer(SecureDataContainer<String> container){
try {
container.createUser("Name","pwd");
} catch (UserAlreadyPresent e) {
System.out.println("User already present");
}
...
To create the user "Name" with the Password "pwd".
But When i put something in the Vector associated to the couple created using my "put" method:
public boolean put(String Owner, String passw, E data) throws NoUserException {
if(Owner == null || passw == null || data == null) throw new NullPointerException();
if(Owner.isEmpty() || passw.isEmpty()) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
KeyCouple user = new KeyCouple(Owner,passw);
if(DBUsers.containsKey(user)){
Vector<E> aux = DBUsers.get(user);
return aux.add(data);
}else{
throw new NoUserException("No user");
}
}
In main class, I call the method:
try {
container.put("Name", "pwd", someData of type E);
} catch (NoUserException e){
abort("no user");
}
and it abort in every case, going even in the catch branch and printing "no user".
What does this means?
You can check the sample KeyCouple class with equals and hashcode.
public class KeyCouple {
private String name;
private String pwd;
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
KeyCouple keyCouple = (KeyCouple) o;
return Objects.equals(name, keyCouple.name) &&
Objects.equals(pwd, keyCouple.pwd);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(name, pwd);
}
}
Your passwords are different. You created it with Pwd, and in your main class you use pwd
every use of new creates a new object in the heap.
while you have stored one instance of KeyCouple as key in the hashmap, you are trying to match it with a different instance of KeyCouple. the hash code generated for each instance of user would be different. thus, java is not able to match them. one solution would be to override the hashCode method in KeyCouple Class.
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(......);
}
You'll need to overwrite the equals and hashcode methods of KeyCouple.
I'd suggest you to use any IDE to auto-generate them for you.
KeyCouple user = new KeyCouple(Owner,passw);
This creates a new user object and you insert this into the map. And the next time you are creating another new Object (which is never equal to the already created Object unless you explicitly override equals/hashcode).
Please refer this for further explanation.
Why do I need to override the equals and hashCode methods in Java?
I have an ArrayList of Objects. I want to see if that ArrayList contains an Object with a particular field.
TeamBuilder.java
public class TeamBuilder {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Team team = new Team();
team.addMember(new TeamMember("myID"));
System.out.println(team.containsMember("myID")); //false
}
}
TeamMember.java
public class TeamMember {
private String id;
public TeamMember(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getID() {
return this.id;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (o instanceof TeamMember) {
o = ((TeamMember) o).getID();
}
return o.equals(this.getID());
}
}
Team.java
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class Team {
private ArrayList<TeamMember> members = new ArrayList<>();
public boolean addMember(TeamMember teamMember) {
if (members.contains(teamMember)) {
return false;
}
members.add(teamMember);
return true;
}
public boolean containsMember(String eid) {
System.out.println(members.get(0).equals(eid)); //true
System.out.println(members.contains(eid)); //false
if (members.contains(eid)) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
I do not want to use a loop and I do not want to overwrite arrayList.contains().
I was expecting .contains() to iterate through my list of TeamMember's and return true when it found one that was equal to the Object passed. The two Objects are equal, but the .contains() method is returning false.
How can I elegantly check to see if a Team contains a TeamMember with the specified ID? I was under the impression I could avoid a for loop because of Java method: Finding object in array list given a known attribute value, but I am not able to get it to work.
The most elegant solution is to
First and foremost fix your equals method so that it fulfills equals contract --- meaning if a.equals(b) then b.equals(a) must be true.
You should never have a TeamMember object be equal to a String. That will result in the possibility of hard to debug side effects and bugs, that you really don't want.
The equals method should never throw an exception. He should first check for reference equality, then class sameness, then field equality.
Your TeamMember class should also override hashCode() and it should use the same fields as the equals method does.
then set up a HashMap<String, TeamMember> that matches ID Strings TeamMember objects.
Be sure that your ID's are immutable.
Fill your Map with String-TeamMember pairs
Call get(String key) when you need a TeamMember that matches an ID.
I am using a map and want to use a value object as a map key..and a list as value. The value object has 2 properties first name, second name..i want to return map.containsKey() as true if both properties matched by some key in the same map..
I tried to use comparator as below
public class comaparatorEx implements Comparator<Test>{
public static void main(String args[]){
Map m= new HashMap<Test,List<String>>();
Test t = new Test();
t.setFirstname("vamsi");
t.setSecondname("priya");
List descriptionList=new ArrayList();
descriptionList.add("description1");
m.put(t, descriptionList);
Test t2 = new Test();
t2.setFirstname("vamsi");
t2.setSecondname("priya");
if(m.containsKey(t2)){
System.out.println("user found");
}
}
public int compare(Test o1, Test o2) {
if((o1.firstname.equals(o2.firstname) )&& o1.secondname.equals(o2.secondname))
return 0;
else return 1;
}
}
this is the value object i am using
public class Test {
String firstname;
String secondname;
public String getFirstname() {
return firstname;
}
public void setFirstname(String firstname) {
this.firstname = firstname;
}
public String getSecondname() {
return secondname;
}
public void setSecondname(String secondname) {
this.secondname = secondname;
}
}
But it returns false for me..please help me ..thanks in advance
For a HashMap, you need to overwrite equals and hashCode in your class.
Possible implementation:
class Test
{
...
#Override
public int hashCode()
{
return 31*firstname.hashCode() + secondname.hashCode();
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj)
{
// basic type validation
if (!(obj instanceof Test))
return false;
Test t = (Test)obj;
return firstname.equals(t.firstname) && secondname.equals(t.secondname);
}
}
Comparator is for comparison-based collections such as TreeMap. To use this, supply an instance of this class in the constructor:
Map m = new TreeMap<Test,List<String>>(new comaparatorEx());
But there is a problem with your compare function - there needs to be logical ordering between the elements (there isn't as you never return -1). String has a compareTo, which you can just use:
public int compare(Test o1, Test o2) {
int result = o1.firstname.compareTo(o2.firstname);
if (result == 0)
return o1.secondname.compareTo(o2.secondname));
else
return result;
}
HashMap uses the hashCode() and equals() methods, internally, to determine e.g. what buckets to look in, and whether the objects in that bucket are the same. You will need to implement both for your Test class, otherwise it will effectively default to reference equality (i.e. are they the exact same object)
You need override the hashcode() and equals() methods to give meaningful equality between the Test object.
HashMap insertions is bassed on the hashcode.
When we pass an both key and value to put() method to store on HashMap , it uses key object hashcode() method to calculate hashcode and they by applying hashing on that hashcode it identifies bucket location for storing value object and keys equals () method will be used to identify correct key value pair in HashMap .
Read more: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-hashmap-works-in-java.html#ixzz2fDozSqmi
you would have to override the default equals method in your test class.
you can write something like this.
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if(null != o && o instanceof test && o.attr1.equals(this.attr1)) return true;
else return false;
}
containskey In map looks at the equals method. More info in the java docs
The implementation of equals i have given is just an example. For a proper implementation you should read this
Can I write a generic method to trim all strings within an complex object (object containing other objects)? Should java reflection api be used to achieve this?Thanks.
I have provided a sample below. However in reality there could be multiple objects within objects. Each object might contain a collection of String or collection of other objects which may contain String. Is there a way to trim the Strings - ones directly with the objects and ones within collection.
public class School{
private List<Course> courses;
private List<Student> students;
// Getters and Setters
}
public class Course{
private String name;
private String xxx;
private String yyy;
private List<String> zzzList;
}
public class Student{
private Map<String,String> xxx;
private List<Course> courseList;
}
Yes, reflection is the way. Basically, you need to:
get the class of the top level object (with [object].getClass())
get all the fields of the object (with clazz.getFields() - beware, it works only with public fields)
check if the field is String (either get field.getType() and check it's a string, or do a field.get(the object) and a instanceof String)
if it's the case, replace the string in the object with the trimmed one, using field.set([your object],[trimmed string])
if the field is an object but not a string, call your method recursively
That will do the trick.
---- just seen your update
Trimming strings in collection will be more tricky, since the strings are not exposed as public fields of the collection (List for example).
You will need something more clever, that will check if an object is an instance of List, or Map, or etc... (or a derived class!).
Main problem is also that java generics are done with erasing type at compile type. So you cannot know that your field is List[String] or List[Integer] or whatever. Every List[?] becomes List.
Still you can try to do it like that:
if field type is List
iterate through the list values
if a value is instanceof String, you have to remove it from the list and insert in place the trimmed version
if a value is an object, there you go again recursively with your method.
Not very interesting in real life samples, but more on a library side maybe.
Long way to go though!
Yes, you can do that with reflection, quite easily. Just check if the field is instanceof String.
The exact way to do it depends on your object structure.
/*********************************************************************************************
* Trim first level children of string type in this object
* #param obj which all string properties to be trimmed
*********************************************************************************************/
public static void trimAll(final Object obj)
throws LocalException
{
if (obj==null) return;
final Class c = obj.getClass();
final Method[] methods = c.getMethods();
final Class[] SETTER_ARGS = new Class[]{String.class};
final Object[] SETTER_VAL = new Object[1];
final String SET = "set";
final String GET = "get";
final String SPACE = "\u0020";
final String TAB = "\t";
for (final Method m:methods)
{
try
{
final String name=m.getName();
if (
name.length()>GET.length()
&& name.indexOf(GET)==0
&& m.getReturnType().equals(String.class)
&& m.getParameterTypes().length==0)
{
final String v = (String)m.invoke(obj);
if (v!=null && (v.contains(SPACE) || v.contains(TAB)) )
{
final Method setter=c.getMethod(SET+name.substring(3),SETTER_ARGS);
if (setter!=null)
{
SETTER_VAL[0]=v.trim();
setter.invoke(obj,SETTER_VAL);
}
}
}
}
catch (final Throwable e)
{
throw new LocalException(LocalException.EC_GENERAL_EXCEPTION,e);
}
}
}
We can also use Jackson to serialize and then deserialize the object. While deserializing we can use custom deserializer to trim all the String values.
Create a deserializer like this:
public class TrimStringToNullDeserializer extends JsonDeserializer<String> {
#Override
public String deserialize(JsonParser jsonParser, DeserializationContext deserializationContext)
throws IOException {
String value = jsonParser.getValueAsString();
if (isNull(value)) {
return null;
}
value = value.trim();
if (value.length() == 0) {
value = null;
}
return value;
}
And then we can use Jackson to trim all values:
public class TrimStringToNullConfiguration {
private ObjectMapper objectMapper;
public Client trimToNull(Client inputClient) throws JsonProcessingException {
return getObjectMapper().readValue(getObjectMapper().writeValueAsString(inputClient), Client.class);
}
private ObjectMapper getObjectMapper() {
if (isNull(objectMapper)) {
objectMapper = new ObjectMapper();
SimpleModule module = new SimpleModule();
module.addDeserializer(String.class, new TrimStringToNullDeserializer());
objectMapper.registerModule(module);
}
return objectMapper;
}
I have placed a working example over here.
private <T> T toTrim(T t) {
Field[] fields = t.getClass().getFields();
for (Field field : fields) {
try {
if (field.get(t) instanceof String) {
Object o = field.get(t);
String s = (String) o;
field.set(t, s.trim().toUpperCase());
}
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
log.info("Error converting field "+ field.getName() );
}
}
return t;
}
if (yourObject instanceof String){
yourObject = yourObject.trim();
}
Hope it helps :)
I need to compare dozens of fields in two objects (instances of the same class), and do some logging and updating in case there are differences. Meta code could look something like this:
if (a.getfield1 != b.getfield1)
log(a.getfield1 is different than b.getfield1)
b.field1 = a.field1
if (a.getfield2!= b.getfield2)
log(a.getfield2 is different than b.getfield2)
b.field2 = a.field2
...
if (a.getfieldn!= b.getfieldn)
log(a.getfieldn is different than b.getfieldn)
b.fieldn = a.fieldn
The code with all the comparisons is very terse, and I would like to somehow make it more compact. It would be nice if I could have a method which would take as a parameter method calls to setter and getter, and call this for all fields, but unfortunately this is not possible with java.
I have come up with three options, each which their own drawbacks.
1. Use reflection API to find out getters and setters
Ugly and could cause run time errors in case names of fields change
2. Change fields to public and manipulate them directly without using getters and setters
Ugly as well and would expose implementation of the class to external world
3. Have the containing class (entity) do the comparison, update changed fields and return log message
Entity should not take part in business logic
All fields are String type, and I can modify code of the class owning the fields if required.
EDIT: There are some fields in the class which must not be compared.
Use Annotations.
If you mark the fields that you need to compare (no matter if they are private, you still don't lose the encapsulation, and then get those fields and compare them. It could be as follows:
In the Class that need to be compared:
#ComparableField
private String field1;
#ComparableField
private String field2;
private String field_nocomparable;
And in the external class:
public <T> void compare(T t, T t2) throws IllegalArgumentException,
IllegalAccessException {
Field[] fields = t.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
if (fields != null) {
for (Field field : fields) {
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ComparableField.class)) {
field.setAccessible(true);
if ( (field.get(t)).equals(field.get(t2)) )
System.out.println("equals");
field.setAccessible(false);
}
}
}
}
The code is not tested, but let me know if helps.
The JavaBeans API is intended to help with introspection. It has been around in one form or another since Java version 1.2 and has been pretty usable since version 1.4.
Demo code that compares a list of properties in two beans:
public static void compareBeans(PrintStream log,
Object bean1, Object bean2, String... propertyNames)
throws IntrospectionException,
IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException {
Set<String> names = new HashSet<String>(Arrays
.asList(propertyNames));
BeanInfo beanInfo = Introspector.getBeanInfo(bean1
.getClass());
for (PropertyDescriptor prop : beanInfo
.getPropertyDescriptors()) {
if (names.remove(prop.getName())) {
Method getter = prop.getReadMethod();
Object value1 = getter.invoke(bean1);
Object value2 = getter.invoke(bean2);
if (value1 == value2
|| (value1 != null && value1.equals(value2))) {
continue;
}
log.format("%s: %s is different than %s%n", prop
.getName(), "" + value1, "" + value2);
Method setter = prop.getWriteMethod();
setter.invoke(bean2, value2);
}
}
if (names.size() > 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("" + names);
}
}
Sample invocation:
compareBeans(System.out, bean1, bean2, "foo", "bar");
If you go the annotations route, consider dumping reflection and generating the comparison code with a compile-time annotation processor or some other code generator.
I would go for option 1, but I would use getClass().getDeclaredFields() to access the fields instead of using the names.
public void compareAndUpdate(MyClass other) throws IllegalAccessException {
for (Field field : getClass().getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.getType() == String.class) {
Object thisValue = field.get(this);
Object otherValue = field.get(other);
// if necessary check for null
if (!thisValue.equals(otherValue)) {
log(field.getName() + ": " + thisValue + " <> " + otherValue);
field.set(other, thisValue);
}
}
}
}
There are some restrictions here (if I'm right):
The compare method has to be implemented in the same class (in my opinion it should - regardless of its implementation) not in an external one.
Just the fields from this class are used, not the one's from a superclass.
Handling of IllegalAccessException necessary (I just throw it in the example above).
This is probably not too nice either, but it's far less evil (IMHO) than either of the two alternatives you've proposed.
How about providing a single getter/setter pair that takes a numeric index field and then have getter/setter dereference the index field to the relevant member variable?
i.e.:
public class MyClass {
public void setMember(int index, String value) {
switch (index) {
...
}
}
public String getMember(int index) {
...
}
static public String getMemberName(int index) {
...
}
}
And then in your external class:
public void compareAndUpdate(MyClass a, MyClass b) {
for (int i = 0; i < a.getMemberCount(); ++i) {
String sa = a.getMember();
String sb = b.getMember();
if (!sa.equals(sb)) {
Log.v("compare", a.getMemberName(i));
b.setMember(i, sa);
}
}
}
This at least allows you to keep all of the important logic in the class that's being examined.
While option 1 may be ugly, it will get the job done. Option 2 is even uglier, and opens your code to vulnerabilities you can't imagine. Even if you eventually rule out option 1, I pray you keep your existing code and not go for option 2.
Having said this, you can use reflection to get a list of the field names of the class, if you don't want to pass this as a static list to the method. Assuming you want to compare all fields, you can then dynamically create the comparisons, in a loop.
If this isn't the case, and the strings you compare are only some of the fields, you can examine the fields further and isolate only those that are of type String, and then proceed to compare.
Hope this helps,
Yuval =8-)
since
All fields are String type, and I can modify code of the class owning the fields if required.
you could try this class:
public class BigEntity {
private final Map<String, String> data;
public LongEntity() {
data = new HashMap<String, String>();
}
public String getFIELD1() {
return data.get(FIELD1);
}
public String getFIELD2() {
return data.get(FIELD2);
}
/* blah blah */
public void cloneAndLogDiffs(BigEntity other) {
for (String field : fields) {
String a = this.get(field);
String b = other.get(field);
if (!a.equals(b)) {
System.out.println("diff " + field);
other.set(field, this.get(field));
}
}
}
private String get(String field) {
String value = data.get(field);
if (value == null) {
value = "";
}
return value;
}
private void set(String field, String value) {
data.put(field, value);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return data.toString();
}
magic code:
private static final String FIELD1 = "field1";
private static final String FIELD2 = "field2";
private static final String FIELD3 = "field3";
private static final String FIELD4 = "field4";
private static final String FIELDN = "fieldN";
private static final List<String> fields;
static {
fields = new LinkedList<String>();
for (Field field : LongEntity.class.getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.getType() != String.class) {
continue;
}
if (!Modifier.isStatic(field.getModifiers())) {
continue;
}
fields.add(field.getName().toLowerCase());
}
}
this class has several advantages:
reflects once, at class loading
it is very simply adding new fields, just add new static field (a better solution here
is using Annotations: in the case you care using reflection works also java 1.4)
you could refactor this class in an abstract class, all derived class just get both
data and cloneAndLogDiffs()
the external interface is typesafe (you could also easily impose immutability)
no setAccessible calls: this method is problematic sometimes
A broad thought:
Create a new class whose object takes the following parameters: the first class to compare, the second class to compare, and a lists of getter & setter method names for the objects, where only methods of interest are included.
You can query with reflection the object's class, and from that its available methods. Assuming each getter method in the parameter list is included in the available methods for the class, you should be able to call the method to get the value for comparison.
Roughly sketched out something like (apologies if it isn't super-perfect... not my primary language):
public class MyComparator
{
//NOTE: Class a is the one that will get the value if different
//NOTE: getters and setters arrays must correspond exactly in this example
public static void CompareMyStuff(Object a, Object b, String[] getters, String[] setters)
{
Class a_class = a.getClass();
Class b_class = b.getClass();
//the GetNamesFrom... static methods are defined elsewhere in this class
String[] a_method_names = GetNamesFromMethods(a_class.getMethods());
String[] b_method_names = GetNamesFromMethods(b_class.getMethods());
String[] a_field_names = GetNamesFromFields(a_class.getFields());
//for relative brevity...
Class[] empty_class_arr = new Class[] {};
Object[] empty_obj_arr = new Object[] {};
for (int i = 0; i < getters.length; i++)
{
String getter_name = getter[i];
String setter_name = setter[i];
//NOTE: the ArrayContainsString static method defined elsewhere...
//ensure all matches up well...
if (ArrayContainsString(a_method_names, getter_name) &&
ArrayContainsString(b_method_names, getter_name) &&
ArrayContainsString(a_field_names, setter_name)
{
//get the values from the getter methods
String val_a = a_class.getMethod(getter_name, empty_class_arr).invoke(a, empty_obj_arr);
String val_b = b_class.getMethod(getter_name, empty_class_arr).invoke(b, empty_obj_arr);
if (val_a != val_b)
{
//LOG HERE
//set the value
a_class.getField(setter_name).set(a, val_b);
}
}
else
{
//do something here - bad names for getters and/or setters
}
}
}
}
You say you presently have getters and setters for all these fields? Okay, then change the underlying data from a bunch of individual fields to an array. Change all the getters and setters to access the array. I'd create constant tags for the indexes rather than using numbers for long-term maintainability. Also create a parallel array of flags indicating which fields should be processed. Then create a generic getter/setter pair that use an index, as well as a getter for the compare flag. Something like this:
public class SomeClass
{
final static int NUM_VALUES=3;
final static int FOO=0, BAR=1, PLUGH=2;
String[] values=new String[NUM_VALUES];
static boolean[] wantCompared={true, false, true};
public String getFoo()
{
return values[FOO];
}
public void setFoo(String foo)
{
values[FOO]=foo;
}
... etc ...
public int getValueCount()
{
return NUM_VALUES;
}
public String getValue(int x)
{
return values[x];
}
public void setValue(int x, String value)
{
values[x]=value;
}
public boolean getWantCompared(int x)
{
return wantCompared[x];
}
}
public class CompareClass
{
public void compare(SomeClass sc1, SomeClass sc2)
{
int z=sc1.getValueCount();
for (int x=0;x<z;++x)
{
if (!sc1.getWantCompared[x])
continue;
String sc1Value=sc1.getValue(x);
String sc2Value=sc2.getValue(x);
if (!sc1Value.equals(sc2Value)
{
writeLog(x, sc1Value, sc2Value);
sc2.setValue(x, sc1Value);
}
}
}
}
I just wrote this off the top of my head, I haven't tested it, so their may be bugs in the code, but I think the concept should work.
As you already have getters and setters, any other code using this class should continue to work unchanged. If there is no other code using this class, then throw away the existing getters and setters and just do everything with the array.
I would also propose a similar solution to the one by Alnitak.
If the fields need to be iterated when comparing, why not dispense with the separate fields, and put the data into an array, a HashMap or something similar that is appropriate.
Then you can access them programmatically, compare them etc. If different fields need to be treated & compared in different ways, you could create approriate helper classes for the values, which implement an interface.
Then you could just do
valueMap.get("myobject").compareAndChange(valueMap.get("myotherobject")
or something along those lines...