We Keep Coding

Java Methods Container

I'm trying to implement an action/reaction system in Java.
For that, I need to have all my methods stock in a container so I can easily call the response I need with the return of the action I want.
Being a C ++ developer and new to Java my first intuition was to create an array of function pointers (or at least reproduce it) so I tried to used anonymous subclasses. But didn't get the result I was looking for.
So I tried with lambdas, here is a sample of what I'm trying to do.
public class Test {
public Map<Integer, Vector<String>> actions = new HashMap<>();
public Map<Integer, Integer> responses = new HashMap<>();
public Test() {
Vector<String> v= new Vector<String>();
actions.put(0, action0());
actions.put(1, action1());
responses.put(0, response0(Vector<String>)); // How can I leave aside this argument which I don't know at this point ?
responses.put(1, response1(Vector<String>));
}
public Vector<String> action0() {...}
public Vector<String> action1() {...}
// This methods takes actions return as argument
public Integer response0 (Vector<String>) {...}
public Integer response1 (Vector<String>) {...}
public void run() {
// When I run, I want to be able to launch any of my responses with any of my actions return
responses.get(0)
}
}
Am I at least trying a good way to solve this problem ?
Thanks a lot

Your code has a few flaws, so I'll assume that getHashtag() and action1() were supposed to be the same, and similar for the other three.
Also, I'll assume that the second responses.put() should have been key 1, not 0. Also, the parameter to your responseX() methods need a name.
Anyway, you need a functional interface, so you can give the responseX() methods as Method References.
In your case, the responseX() methods take a Vector<String> as parameter, and returns an Integer, so the functional interface would be Function<Vector<String>, Integer>.
You can then build a map of those methods, to be executed later.
public Test() {
// Here we can build map of response methods first, if we like, even though Vectors don't exist yet
Map<Integer, Function<Vector<String>, Integer>> responseMethods = new HashMap<>();
responseMethods.put(0, this::response0);
responseMethods.put(1, this::response1);
// Now we build the action map of Vectors
Map<Integer, Vector<String>> actions = new HashMap<>();
actions.put(0, action0());
actions.put(1, action1());
// At this time, we can now execute the referenced methods to get the actual responses
Map<Integer, Integer> responses = new HashMap<>();
for (Integer key : actions.keySet()) {
Vector<String> v = actions.get(key);
Function<Vector<String>, Integer> responseMethod = responseMethods.get(key);
Integer response = responseMethod.apply(v);
responses.put(key, response);
}
}
public Vector<String> action0() {...}
public Vector<String> action1() {...}
public Integer response0(Vector<String> v) {...}
public Integer response1(Vector<String> v) {...}
You can even defer the execution of the action methods if you want:
public Test() {
// Here we can build map of response methods first, if we like, even though Vectors don't exist yet
Map<Integer, Function<Vector<String>, Integer>> responseMethods = new HashMap<>();
responseMethods.put(0, this::response0);
responseMethods.put(1, this::response1);
// Now we build the action map of Vectors
Map<Integer, Supplier<Vector<String>>> actionMethods = new HashMap<>();
actionMethods.put(0, this::action0);
actionMethods.put(1, this::action1);
// At this time, we can now execute the referenced methods to get the actual responses
Map<Integer, Integer> responses = new HashMap<>();
for (Integer key : actionMethods.keySet()) {
Supplier<Vector<String>> actionMethod = actionMethods.get(key);
Function<Vector<String>, Integer> responseMethod = responseMethods.get(key);
Vector<String> v = actionMethod.get();
Integer response = responseMethod.apply(v);
responses.put(key, response);
}
}

sorting a List<Map<String, String>>

I have a list of a map of strings:
List<Map<String, String>> list = new ArrayList<Map<String, String>>();
This gets populated with the following:
Map<String, String> action1 = new LinkedHashMap<>();
map.put("name", "CreateFirstName");
map.put("nextAction", "CreateLastName");
Map<String, String> action2 = new LinkedHashMap<>();
map.put("name", "CreateAddress");
map.put("nextAction", "CreateEmail");
Map<String, String> action3 = new LinkedHashMap<>();
map.put("name", "CreateLastName");
map.put("nextAction", "CreateAddress");
Map<String, String> action4 = new LinkedHashMap<>();
map.put("name", "CreateEmail");
list.add(action1);
list.add(action2);
list.add(action3);
list.add(action4);
action4 doesn't have a nextAction because it is the last action, but might be easier to just give it a nextAction that is a placeholder for no next action?
Question: How can I sort my list, so that the actions are in order?
ie: the nextAction of an action, is the same as the name of the next action in the list.

Although this seems to be a case of the XY-Problem, and this list of maps is certainly not a "nicely designed data model", and there is likely a representation that is "better" in many ways (although nobody can give recommendations about what the "best" model could be, as long as the overall goal is not known), this is the task that you have at hand, and here is how it could be solved:
First of all, you have to determine the first element of the sorted list. This is exactly the map that has a "name" entry that does not appear as the "nextAction" entry of any other map.
After you have this first map, you can add it to the (sorted) list. Then, determining the next element boils down to finding the map whose "name" is the same as the "nextAction" of the previous map. To quickly find these successors, you can build a map that maps each "name" entry to the map itself.
Here is a basic implementation of this sorting approach:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.LinkedHashMap;
import java.util.LinkedHashSet;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Set;
public class SortListWithMaps
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
List<Map<String, String>> list = new ArrayList<Map<String, String>>();
Map<String, String> action1 = new LinkedHashMap<>();
action1.put("name", "CreateFirstName");
action1.put("nextAction", "CreateLastName");
Map<String, String> action2 = new LinkedHashMap<>();
action2.put("name", "CreateAddress");
action2.put("nextAction", "CreateEmail");
Map<String, String> action3 = new LinkedHashMap<>();
action3.put("name", "CreateLastName");
action3.put("nextAction", "CreateAddress");
Map<String, String> action4 = new LinkedHashMap<>();
action4.put("name", "CreateEmail");
list.add(action1);
list.add(action2);
list.add(action3);
list.add(action4);
// Make it a bit more interesting...
Collections.shuffle(list);
System.out.println("Before sorting");
for (Map<String, String> map : list)
{
System.out.println(map);
}
List<Map<String, String>> sortedList = sort(list);
System.out.println("After sorting");
for (Map<String, String> map : sortedList)
{
System.out.println(map);
}
}
private static List<Map<String, String>> sort(
List<Map<String, String>> list)
{
// Compute a map from "name" to the actual map
Map<String, Map<String, String>> nameToMap =
new LinkedHashMap<String, Map<String,String>>();
for (Map<String, String> map : list)
{
String name = map.get("name");
nameToMap.put(name, map);
}
// Determine the first element for the sorted list. For that,
// create the set of all names, and remove all of them that
// appear as the "nextAction" of another entry
Set<String> names =
new LinkedHashSet<String>(nameToMap.keySet());
for (Map<String, String> map : list)
{
String nextAction = map.get("nextAction");
names.remove(nextAction);
}
if (names.size() != 1)
{
System.out.println("Multiple possible first elements: " + names);
return null;
}
// Insert the elements, in sorted order, into the result list
List<Map<String, String>> result =
new ArrayList<Map<String, String>>();
String currentName = names.iterator().next();
while (currentName != null)
{
Map<String, String> element = nameToMap.get(currentName);
result.add(element);
currentName = element.get("nextAction");
}
return result;
}
}

Instead of using a Map to store the properties of an action (the name and the nextAction), create your own type that's composed of those properties:
class Action {
private String name;
//nextAction
public void perform() {
//do current action
//use nextAction to perform the next action
}
}
The nextAction can now be a reference to the next action:
abstract class Action implements Action {
private String name;
private Action nextAction;
public Action(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public final void perform() {
perform(name);
nextAction.perform();
}
protected abstract void perform(String name);
}
You can now create your actions by subtyping the Action class:
class CreateFirstName extends Action {
public CreateFirstName(Action nextAction) {
super("CreateFirstName", nextAction);
}
protected final void perform(String name) {
System.out.println("Performing " + name);
}
}
And chain them together:
Action action = new CreateFirstName(new CreateLastName(new CreateEmail(...)));
The nested expressions can get pretty messy, but we'll get to that later. There's a bigger problem here.
action4 doesn't have a nextAction because it is the last action, but might be easier to just give it a nextAction that is a placeholder for no next action
The same problem applies to the code above.
Right now, every action must have a next action, due to the constructor Action(String, Action). We could take the easy route and pass in a placeholder for no next action (null being the easiest route):
class End extends Action {
public End() {
super("", null);
}
}
And do a null check:
//class Action
public void perform() {
perform(name);
if(nextAction != null) {
nextAction.perform(); //performs next action
}
}
But this would be a code smell. You can stop reading here and use the simple fix, or continue below for the more involved (and educational) route.
There's a good chance that when you do use null, you're falling victim to a code smell. Although it doesn't apply to all cases (due to Java's poor null safety), you should try to avoid null if possible. Instead, rethink your design as in this example. If all else fails, use Optional.
The last action is not the same as the other actions. It can still perform like the other, but it has different property requirements.
This means they could both share the same behavior abstraction, but must differ when it comes to defining properties:
interface Action {
void perform();
}
abstract class ContinuousAction implements Action {
private String name;
private Action nextAction;
public ContinuousAction(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public final void perform() {
perform(name);
nextAction.perform();
}
protected abstract void perform(String name);
}
abstract class PlainAction implements Action {
private String name;
public PlainAction(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public final void perform() {
perform(name);
}
protected abstract void perform(String name);
}
The last action would extend PlainAction, while the others would extend ContinuousAction.
Lastly, to prevent long chains:
new First(new Second(new Third(new Fourth(new Fifth(new Sixth(new Seventh(new Eighth(new Ninth(new Tenth())))))))))
You could specify the next action within each concrete action:
class CreateFirstName extends ContinuousAction {
public CreateFirstName() {
super("CreateFirstName", new CreateLastName());
}
//...
}
class CreateLastName extends ContinuousAction {
public CreateLastName() {
super("CreateLastName", new CreateEmail());
}
//...
}
class CreateEmail extends PlainAction {
public CreateEmail() {
super("CreateEmail");
}
//...
}
The ContinuousAction and PlainAction can be abstracted further. They are both named actions (they have names), and that property affects their contract in the samw way (passing it to the template method process(String)):
abstract class NamedAction implements Action {
private String name;
public NamedAction(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public final void perform() {
perform(name);
}
protected abstract void perform(String name);
}
//class ContinuousAction extends NamedAction
//class PlainAction extends NamedAction

Sortby in Javardd

I'm usinig spark with java. And i want to sort my map. In fact, i have i javaRDD like this :
JavaPairRDD<String, Integer> rebondCountURL = session_rebond_2.mapToPair(new PairFunction<Tuple2<String, String>, String, String>() {
#Override
public Tuple2<String, String> call(Tuple2<String, String> stringStringTuple2) throws Exception {
return new Tuple2<String, String>(stringStringTuple2._2, stringStringTuple2._1);
}
}).groupByKey().map(new PairFunction<Tuple2<String, Iterable<String>>, Tuple2<String, Integer>>() {
#Override
public Tuple2<String, Integer> call(Tuple2<String, Iterable<String>> stringIterableTuple2) throws Exception {
Iterable<String> strings = stringIterableTuple2._2;
List<String> b = new ArrayList<String>();
for (String s : strings) {
b.add(s);
}
return new Tuple2<String, Integer>(stringIterableTuple2._1, b.size());
}
});
And i want to sort this Java Rdd using Sortby (in order to sort using the Integer).
Can you help me please to do it ?
Thank you in advance.

You need to create a function which extracts the sorting key from each element. Example from our code
final JavaRDD<Something> stage2 = stage1.sortBy( new Function<Something, Long>() {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Override
public Long call( Something value ) throws Exception {
return value.getTime();
}
}, true, 1 );

Just a tip related to sortBy().. If you want to sort a set of user defined objects say Point then implement the Comparable<Point> interface in the class Point and override the compareTo() method in which you can write your own logic for sorting. After this, the sortby function will take care of the sorting logic.
Note: your Point class must also implement java.io.Serializable interface or else you will encounter NotSerializable exception.

This is a code based on #Vignesh suggestion. You can sortBy any custom implementation of Comparator. It is more clean to write the comparator separately, and use a reference in the spark code :
rdd ->{JavaRDD<MaxProfitDto> result =
rdd.keyBy(Recommendations.profitAsKey)
.sortByKey(new CryptoVolumeComparator())
.values()
So, the comparator looks like below:
import java.io.Serializable;
import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.util.Comparator;
import models.CryptoDto;
import scala.Tuple2;
public class CryptoVolumeComparator implements Comparator<Tuple2<BigDecimal, CryptoDto>>, Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
#Override
public int compare(Tuple2<BigDecimal, CryptoDto> v1, Tuple2<BigDecimal, CryptoDto> v2) {
return v2._1().compareTo(v1._1());
}
}

How to properly lazy initialize Map of Map of Map?

It may be a bad practice, but I haven't been able to figure out any better solution for my problem. So I have this map
// Map<state, Map<transition, Map<property, value>>>
private Map<String, Map<String, Map<String, String>>> properties;
and I want to initialize it so I don't get NullPointerException with this
properties.get("a").get("b").get("c");
I tried this one but I didn't work (obviously)
properties = new HashMap<String, Map<String, Map<String,String>>>();
Other things I tried didn't compile.
Also if you have any ideas how to avoid this nested maps, I would appreciate it.

It seems to me that you need to create your own Key class:
public class Key {
private final String a;
private final String b;
private final String c;
public Key(String a, String b, String c) {
// initialize all fields here
}
// you need to implement equals and hashcode. Eclipse and IntelliJ can do that for you
}
If you implement your own key class, your map will look like this:
Map<Key, String> map = new HashMap<Key, String>();
And when looking for something in the map you can use:
map.get(new Key("a", "b", "c"));
The method above will not throw a NullPointerException.
Please remember that for this solution to work, you need to override equals and hashcode in the Key class. There is help here. If you don't override equals and hashcode, then a new key with the same elements won't match an existing key in the map.
There are other possible solutions but implementing your own key is a pretty clean one in my opinion. If you don't want to use the constructor you can initialize your key with a static method and use something like:
Key.build(a, b, c)
It is up to you.

You need to put maps in your maps in your map. Literally:
properties = new HashMap<String, Map<String, Map<String,String>>>();
properties.put("a", new HashMap<String, Map<String,String>>());
properites.get("a").put("b", new HashMap<String,String>());
If your target is lazy initialization without NPE you have to create your own map:
private static abstract class MyMap<K, V> extends HashMap<K, V> {
#Override
public V get(Object key) {
V val = super.get(key);
if (val == null && key instanceof K) {
put((K)key, val = create());
}
return val;
}
protected abstract V create();
}
public void initialize() {
properties = new MyMap<String, Map<String, Map<String, String>>>() {
#Override
protected Map<String, Map<String, String>> create() {
return new MyMap<String, Map<String, String>>() {
#Override
protected Map<String, String> create() {
return new HashMap<String, String>();
}
};
}
};
}

You could use a utility method:
public static <T> T get(Map<?, ?> properties, Object... keys) {
Map<?, ?> nestedMap = properties;
for (int i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) {
if (i == keys.length - 1) {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
T value = (T) nestedMap.get(keys[i]);
return value;
} else {
nestedMap = (Map<?, ?>) nestedMap.get(keys[i]);
if(nestedMap == null) {
return null;
}
}
}
return null;
}
This can be invoked like this:
String result = get(properties, "a", "b", "c");
Note that care is required when using this as it is not type-safe.

The only way to do it with this structure is to pre-initialise the 1st and 2nd level maps with ALL possible keys. If this is not possible to do you can't achieve what you are asking with plain Maps.
As an alternative you can build a custom data structure that is more forgiving. For example a common trick is for a failed key lookup to return an "empty" structure rather than null, allowing nested access.

You can't initialize this in one go, since you normally don't know what keys you'll have in advance.
Thus you'd have to check whether the submap for a key is null and if so you might add an empty map for that. Preferably you'd only do that when adding entries to the map and upon retrieving entries you return null if one of the submaps in the path doesn't exist. You could wrap that in your own map implementation for ease of use.
As an alternative, apache commons collections' MultiKeyMap might provide what you want.

It's impossible to use properties.get("a").get("b").get("c"); and be sure to avoid null unless you make your own Map. In fact, you can't predict that your map will contains "b" key.
So try to make your own class to handle nested get.

I think a better solution is using an object as the only key to the map of values. The key will be composed of three fields, state, transition and property.
import org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.EqualsBuilder;
import org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.HashCodeBuilder;
public class Key {
private String state;
private String transition;
private String property;
public Key(String state, String transition, String property) {
this.state = state;
this.transition = transition;
this.property = property;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return EqualsBuilder.reflectionEquals(this, other);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return HashCodeBuilder.reflectionHashCode(this);
}
}
When you check for a value, the map will return null for a key that is not associated with a value
Map<Key, String> values = new HashMap<Key, String>();
assert values.get(new Key("a", "b", "c")) == null;
values.put(new Key("a", "b", "c"), "value");
assert values.get(new Key("a", "b", "c")) != null;
assert values.get(new Key("a", "b", "c")).equals("value");
To efficiently and correctly use an object as a key in a Map you should override the methods equals() and hashCode(). I have built thos methods using the reflective functionalities of the Commons Lang library.

I think, following is the easier way:
public static final Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>> A_Map = new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>>()
{
{
put(0, new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>()
{
{
put(0, new HashMap<Integer, Double>()
{
{
put(0, 1 / 60.0);
put(1, 1 / 3600.0);
}
});
put(1, new HashMap<Integer, Double>()
{
{
put(0, 1 / 160.0);
put(1, 1 / 13600.0);
}
});
}
});
put(1, new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>()
{
{
put(0, new HashMap<Integer, Double>()
{
{
put(0, 1 / 260.0);
put(1, 1 / 3600.0);
}
});
put(1, new HashMap<Integer, Double>()
{
{
put(0, 1 / 560.0);
put(1, 1 / 1300.0);
}
});
}
});
}
};

Using computeIfAbsent/putIfAbsent makes it simple:
private <T> void addValueToMap(String keyA, String keyB, String keyC, String value) {
map.computeIfAbsent(keyA, k -> new HashMap<>())
.computeIfAbsent(keyB, k -> new HashMap<>())
.putIfAbsent(keyC, value);
}

Returning an unmodifiable map

Using Collections.unmodifiableMap(...), I'm trying to return an unmodifiable view of a map. Let's say I have the following method,
public final Map<Foo, Bar> getMap(){
...
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
Why is it legal elsewhere to do the following,
Map<Foo, Bar> map = getMap();
map.put(...);
This doesn't throw an UnsupportedOperationException like I thought it would. Can someone please explain this, or suggest how I can successfully return a truly unmodifiable map?

Are you sure you're not masking your exceptions somehow? This works absolutely fine, in that it throws UnsupportedOperationException:
import java.util.*;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Map<String, String> map = getMap();
map.put("a", "b");
}
public static final Map<String, String> getMap(){
Map<String, String> map = new HashMap<String, String>();
map.put("x", "y");
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
}
I suggest you print out map.getClass() on the return value of the method - I would expect it to be an UnmodifiableMap.

I created a small test program and my program threw an 'UnsupportedOperationException' when I tried to put data in.
code:
import java.util.*;
public class TestUnmodifiableMap
{
Map<Integer, String> myMap;
public TestUnmodifiableMap()
{
myMap = new HashMap<Integer, String>();
}
public final Map<Integer, String> getMap()
{
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(myMap);
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
TestUnmodifiableMap t = new TestUnmodifiableMap();
Map<Integer, String> testMap = t.getMap();
testMap.put(new Integer("1"), "Hello");
}
}
What else are you doing in your class?

There must be something else wrong. There's no way you can put something in that map after you wrapped it as an unmodifiable map.
I would also suggest to return
return Collections.<Foo, Bar>unmodifiableMap(map);
otherwise you will get "unchecked" warnings when compiling your code with -Xlint:unchecked.