We Keep Coding

How to use generics with interfaces

I'm fairly new to programming and we do have an exercise, we have to use the Consumer interface, we have a generic class (genClass) that has a Consumer<T> attribute (conAtt). In another class we have to use the accept method of Consumer, but somehow it doesn't work. I have already read through the Java API of the Consumer interface, but it didn't help.
The error message says:
The method accept(capture#4-of ?) in the type Consumer<capture#4-of ?> is not applicable for the arguments (capture#5-of ?)
I know it says not applicable, but why not?
public abstract class GenClass<T> {
protected Consumer<T> conAtt;
public abstract T getData();
}
class Otherclass{
private List<GenClass<?>> helparray= new ArrayList<>();
private void testmethod() {
Iterator<GenClass<?>> hilfe = helparray.iterator();
while (hilfe.hasNext()) {
GenClass<?> help = hilfe.next();
help.conAtt.accept(help.getData());//here is the problem
}
}
}
public class thirdclass extends GenClass<Character> {
#Override
public Character getData() {
return 't';//t is just an example
}
}

This is not really a question about how the Consumer - or other interfaces - in Java work, but about Generics.
Generics aim to simplify the way of writing code and avoid code repetitions. E.g. you need to do a similar task, but for different types you can write it once by using Generics instead of writing it over and over again, just with concrete types being replaced.
For example one day you have the need to keep track of a list of Strings. As easy as that, your going ahead and implementing a solution for that, whereby the first implementation can look like the following (note: a very simplified example, but it'll show the purpose):
public class CustomListString {
private String[] elements = new String[10];
public void add(String newElement) {
int nextFreeIndex = findNextFreeIndex();
elements[nextFreeIndex] = newElement;
}
public String get(int index) {
return elements[index];
}
}
So you can use the above implementation of the List in your code like the following:
public static void main(String[] args) {
CustomListString listOfStrings = new CustomListString();
listOfStrings.add("A");
listOfStrings.add("B");
}
Simple, specific and sufficient!
But the other day, you also have the requirement to keep track of a list of Integers. What to do now?
A way to solve this is to just repeat your previous approach and to implement another CustomList only for the Integers now. Where the corresponding implementation would look like this (the implementation of CustomListString has been copied and all occurrences of String have been replaced by Integer):
public class CustomListInteger {
private Integer[] elements = new Integer[10];
public void add(Integer newElement) {
int nextFreeIndex = findNextFreeIndex();
elements[nextFreeIndex] = newElement;
}
public Integer get(int index) {
return elements[index];
}
}
As you can imagine now already, this is not flexible and can be very cumbersome in the future. This approach will require a new implementation of each type you want to store in the future. So you might end up to also create implementations like CustomListDouble, CustomListCharacter, ... and so on, in which only the type of the elements within the array change - nothing else which would be of importance!
This will additionally lead to the situation, that you'll duplicate a lot of similar code (like findNextFreeIndex() method would have been) and in case of a bugfix need to adjust it in a lot of places instead of in only one.
To solve this issue and remain the type safety in the CustomList.get method Generics have been introduced to Java!
With the Generics approach you'll be able to create a single implementation of the CustomList to store all of your data types without unnecessarily duplicating any shared, basic code and remain the type safety!
public class CustomList<T> {
private Object[] elements = new Object[10]; // Java doesn't supprort easily support generic arrays, so using Object
// here. But the compiler ensures only elements of the generic type T
// will end up here
public void add(T newElement) {
int nextFreeIndex = findNextFreeIndex();
elements[nextFreeIndex] = newElement;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public T get(int index) {
return (T) elements[index];
}
}
Using the new list following the Generics approach we can use it like this now:
public static void main(String[] args) {
CustomList<String> genericList = new CustomList<>();
genericList.add("Hello World");
genericList.add(5); // Compile error! Integer and String types cannot be mixed in
// a single instance of the list anymore => Nice, prevents errors!
genericList.get(0).substring(6); // No compile error, also the compiler knows Strings
// are contained in the list
}
The generic CustomList can now also be reused for any other type and still provide type safety.
What does it mean for your implementation
You can see how we specified the generic type in the CustomList class as T - this is similar like you specified it with ? (probably you'll also want to replace it with T, since you'll run into other issues later when working with the Consumer). But when we used the implementation in our other classes, it wouldn't have been possible to specify it as CustomList<T> or CustomList<?> anymore. We needed to decide and specifiy which exact type of elements the list should contain. This has been the String class, so we specified it as CustomList<String>.
Note: ? is a generic wildcard and means something like "I don't know the real type of the classes now and I'll also don't know it in the future". That's why it'll be hard for you working with the concrete types later in the Consumer. You'll be not able to call any conrete methods on your objects therein. Therefore ? should be avoided as a generic type argument and something like T should be used instead. T means something like "I don't know the real type of the classes now, but I'll do later, as soon as you tell me". Therfore you'll be able to call concrete methods on the objects later in the Consumer, what will simplify your work there a lot.
For your code this means, wherever you want to use your implementation of GenClass<T> you need to specify with which exact kind of elements the class is going to work with. In case of String it is GenClass<String> in case of Character GenClass<Character>.
So the place you'll need to replace the occurrences of GenClass<?> is wherever you refer to it in Otherclass and Otherclass.testmethod.
The way you used the Consumer is fine

Converting Linked List toString into Generic

I am writing a Linked List class that takes in names or numbers, and then prints them out in a list. I managed to write the list normally. Here is what I did:
public String toString(){
return list.toString; //where list is the LinkedList I am calling
}
That works correctly and returns my list after adding 4 elements like this:
[Joe, Jessica, Max, 5]
Now I am trying to convert that same method onto a generic method, so I did 2 things.
Here I created the collections object:
private Collection<E> collection;
public MyLinkedListG(Collection<E> _collection) {
collection= _collection;
}
And here is how I wrote the new toString in collections:
public String toString(){
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
for(E e : collection) {
builder.append(e); //appends each string
}
return builder.toString();
}
The problem is that now my test class will not allow me to call the LinkedList object I had created before which was:
MyLinkedListG x = new MyLinkedListG();
It states I need to input a collection inside the parameter. How can I call it now? Or am I doing it totally wrong?
If something is not clear please let me know so I can clarify as soon as possible. Thanks in advanced.

From what I can tell, your original class likely did not include a constructor. This means the no-arguments constructor new MyLinkedListG() is provided by default, which is likely what you used to construct an instance of your class.
After your modifications, you added a constructor MyLinkedListG(Collection<E> _collection). Now the no-arguments constructor is not provided by default anymore. If you want to continue to use it, it must be explicitly defined.
Your class will probably have two (or more) constructors in this case, perhaps something like this:
private Collection<E> collection;
public MyLinkedListG(Collection<E> _collection) {
collection= _collection;
}
public MyLinkedListG() {
collection=new LinkedList<E>();
}
Now you can use either constructor for your object.

You can only use an empty constructor if
A) you have not defined a constructor
or
B) if you have explicitly defined an empty constructor.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-8.html#jls-8.8.9

Automatically merge several collections to one

I have some Guava Functions like Function<String,Set<String>>. Using those with FluentIterable.transform() leads to a FluentIterable<Set<String>>, however I need a FluentIterable<String>. So my idea now would be to subclass FluentIterable<E> and add a new method transform2() which simply merges everything to one collection before returning it.
The original transform method looks like this:
public final <T> FluentIterable<T> transform(Function<? super E, T> function) {
return from(Iterables.transform(iterable, function));
}
I thought of something like this for my subclass and transform2() method:
public abstract class FluentIterable2<E> extends FluentIterable<E>
{
public final <T> FluentIterable<T> transform2(Function<? super E, Collection<T>> function) {
// (PROBLEM 1) Eclipse complains: The field FluentIterable<E>.iterable is not visible
Iterable<Collection<T>> iterables = Iterables.transform(iterable, function);
// (PROBLEM 2) Collection<T> merged = new Collection<T>(); // I need a container / collection - which one?
for(Collection<T> iterable : iterables)
{
// merged.addAll(iterable);
}
// return from(merged);
}
}
Currently I have two problems with my new subclass, marked above with PROBLEM 1 and PROBLEM 2
PROBLEM 1: The iterable field in the original FluentIterable class is private - what can I do about this? Can I create a new private field with the same name in my subclass, will this then be OK? What about methods in my subclass that call super.someMethod() which uses this field? Will they then use the field of the super class, which probably has a different value?
PROBLEM 2: I need some generic collection where I can combine the content of several collections, but collections is an interface, so I can't instantiate it. So, which class can I use there?
It would be acceptable if the solution only works with sets, though I'd prefer a solution that works with sets and lists.
Thanks for any hint on this!

Does FluentIterable.transformAndConcat(stringToSetFunction) not work for your use case?

Why subclass FluentIterable just to do this? You just need a simple loop:
Set<String> union = Sets.newHashSet();
for (Set<String> set : fluentIterableOfSets) {
union.addAll(set);
}

Use FluentIterable.transformAndConcat(f), where f is a Function mapping an element to some kind of iterable over the element type.
In your case, let's say your Function<String, Set<String>> is called TOKENIZE, and your initial Iterable<String> is called LINES.
Then to get a Set<String> holding all the distinct tokens in LINES, do this:
Iterable<String> LINES = ...;
Function<String, Set<String>> TOKENIZE = ...;
Set<String> TOKENS = FluentIterable.from(LINES)
.transformAndConcat(TOKENIZE)
.toSet();
But consider JB Nizet's answer carefully. Try it both ways and see which works better.

How do I perform an action on each element of a List and return the result (without affecting the original of course)?

How do I write a static method in Java that will take a List, perform an action on each element, and return the result (without affecting the original of course)?
For example, if I want to add 2 to each element what goes in the ... here? The concrete return type must be the same, e.g. if my List is a LinkedList with values 1,2,3 I should get back a LinkedList with values 3,4,5. Similarly for ArrayList, Vector, Stack etc, which are all Lists.
I can see how to do this using multiple if (lst instanceof LinkedList) ... etc... any better way?
import java.util.List;
public class ListAdd {
static List<Integer> add2 (List<Integer> lst) {
...
return result;
}
}

There are already many answers, but I'd like to show you a different way to think of this problem.
The operation you want to perform is known as map in the world of functional programming. It is something we do really all the time in functional languages.
Let M<A> be some kind of container (in your case, M would be List, and A would be Integer; however, the container can be lots of other things). Suppose you have a function that transforms As into Bs, that is, f: A -> B. Let's write this function as of type F<A, B>, to use a notation closer to Java. Note that you can have A = B, as in the example you give (in which A = B = Integer).
Then, the operation map is defined as follows:
M<B> map(M<A>, F<A, B>)
That is, the operation will return a M<B>, presumably by applying F<A, B> to each A in M<A>.
In practice...
There's a brilliant library developed by Google, called Guava, which brings lot's of functional idioms to Java.
In Guava, the map operation is called transform, and it can operate on any Iterable. It has also more specific implementations that work directly on lists, sets, etc.
Using Guava, the code you want to write would look like this:
static List<Integer> add2(List<Integer> ns) {
return Lists.transform(ns, new Function<Integer, Integer>() {
#Override Integer apply(Integer n) { return n + 2; }
}
}
Simple as that.
This code won't touch the original list, it will simply provide a new list that calculates its values as needed (that is, the values of the newly created list won't be calculated unless needed -- it's called a lazy operation).
As a final consideration, it is not possible for you to be absolutely sure that you will be able to return exactly the same implementation of List. And as many others pointed out, unless there's a very specific reason for this, you shouldn't really care. That's why List is an interface, you don't care about the implementation.

Fundamentally, the List interface doesn't make any guarantees that you'll have a way to duplicate it.
You may have some luck with various techniques:
Using clone() on the passed in List, although it may throw, or (since it is protected in Object) simply not be accessible
Use reflection to look for a public no-argument constructor on the passed-in List
Try to serialize and deserialize it in order to perform a "deep clone"
Create some sort of factory and build in knowledge of how to duplicate each different kind of List your code may encounter (What if it's a wrapper created by unmodifiableList(), or some oddball custom implementation backed by a RandomAccessFile?)
If all else fails, either throw, or return an ArrayList or a Vector for lack of better options

You could use reflection to look for a public zero-arg constructor on the result of lst.getClass() and then invoke() it to obtain the List into which you'll place your results. The Java Collections Framework recommends that any derivative of Collection offer a zero-arg constructor. That way, your results we be of the same runtime class as the argument.

Here is a variant which does neither copies nor modifies the original list. Instead, it wraps the original list by another object.
public List<Integer> add2(final List<Integer> lst) {
return new AbstractList<Integer>() {
public int size() {
return lst.size();
}
public Integer get(int index) {
return 2 + lst.get(index);
}
};
}
The returned list is not modifiable, but will change whenever the original list changes.
(This implements the iterator based on index access, thus it will be slow for a linked list. Then better implement it based on AbstractSequentialList.)
Of course, the resulting list will obviously not be of the same class as the original list.
Use this solution only if you really only need a read-only two added view of your original list, not if you want a modified copy with similar properties.

The whole point of using an interface, in this case List, is to abstract the fact that the implementation is hidden behind the interface.
Your intention is clear to me, however: the Clonable interface supports creating a new instance with the same state. This interface might not be defined on your List.
Often it's a good idea to rethink this situation: why do you need to clone the List in this place, this class? Shouldn't your list-creator be responsible for cloning the list? Or shouldn't the caller, who knows the type, make sure he passes in a clone of his list?
Probably, if you look for the semantics as you defined it, you can implement all your supported Lists:
static Vector<Integer> addTwo(Vector<Integer> vector) {
Vector<Integer> copy = null; // TODO: copy the vector
return addTwo_mutable(copy);
}
static ArrayList<Integer> addTwo(ArrayList<Integer> aList) {
ArrayList<Integer> copy = null; // TODO: copy the array list
return addTwo_mutable(copy);
}
static LinkedList<Integer> addTwo(LinkedList<Integer> lList) {
LinkedList<Integer> copy = null; // TODO: copy the linked list
return addTwo_mutable(copy);
}
private <T extends List<Integer>> static T addTwo_mutable(T list) {
return list; // TODO: implement
}
Even, when you don't support a data-type, you'll get a nice compiler error that the specified method does not exists.
(code not tested)

Just to show you that what you want to do is not possible in the general case, consider the following class:
final class MyList extends ArrayList<Integer> {
private MyList() {
super.add(1);
super.add(2);
super.add(3);
}
private static class SingletonHolder {
private static final MyList instance = new MyList();
}
public static MyList getInstance() {
return SingletonHolder.instance;
}
}
It is a singleton (also, a lazy, thread-safe singleton by the way), it's only instance can be obtained from MyList.getInstance(). You cannot use reflection reliably (because the constructor is private; for you to use reflection, you'd have to rely on proprietary, non-standard, non-portable APIs, or on code that could break due to a SecurityManager). So, there's no way for you to return a new instance of this list, with different values.
It's final as well, so that you cannot return a child of it.
Also, it would be possible to override every method of ArrayList that would modify the list, so that it would be really an immutable singleton.
Now, why would you want to return the exact same implementation of List?

OK well someone mentioned reflection. It seems to be an elegant solution:
import java.util.*;
public class ListAdd {
static List<Integer> add2 (List<Integer> lst) throws Exception {
List<Integer> result = lst.getClass().newInstance();
for (Integer i : lst) result.add(i + 2);
return result;
}
}
Concise, but it thows an checked exception, which is not nice.
Also, wouldn't it be nicer if we could use the method on concrete types as well, e.g. if a is an ArrayList with values 1, 2, 3, we could call add2(a) and get an ArrayList back? So in an improved version, we could make the signature generic:
static <T extends List<Integer>> T add2 (T lst) {
T res;
try {
res = (T) lst.getClass().newInstance();
} catch (InstantiationException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
for (Integer i : lst) res.add(i + 2);
return res;
}
I think throwing a runtime exception is the least worst option if a list without a nullary construcor is passed in. I don't see a way to ensure that it does. (Java 8 type annotations to the rescue maybe?) Returning null would be kind of useless.
The downside of using this signature is that we can't return an ArrayList etc as the default, as we could have done as an alternative to throwing an exception, since the return type is guaranteed to be the same type as that passed in. However, if the user actually wants an ArrayList (or some other default type) back, he can make an ArrayList copy and use the method on that.
If anyone with API design experience reads this, I would be interested to know your thoughts on which is the preferable option: 1) returning a List that needs to be explicity cast back into the original type, but enabling a return of a different concrete type, or 2) ensuring the return type is the same (using generics), but risking exceptions if (for example) a singleton object without a nullary constructor is passed in?

hidding api with interfaces in Java

Can somebody explain me what "hidding api with interfaces in Java" means ?
How can I use the API functions by means of interfaces ?
I would need an small working example to understand the how the interfaces hides the api non public parts, and how can I use the api puplic parts in the same time.
Thanks in advance.
THANKS GUYS FOR THE QUICK REPLY, GIVE ME TIME TO THINK OVER THE ANSWERS.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT!
II. My second question is : What happens in the background this case below ?
IBinaryOperation op = BinaryOperationProvider.getOperation("multiply");
or
List<String> myList = new LinkedList<String>();
Its not clear for me because the interfaces consist of methods' declarations that's why i dont understand what could happened in the lines above.
Is there any meaning of the equality between empty method of used interfaces and objects ?
Sorry for my weak English.

For instance, you may declare and create a list of strings as follows:
List<String> myList = new LinkedList<String>();
List is the type of myList. It is an interface. It means that all subsequent calls to methods of myList will be done through the interface: you may only call methods declared in the List interface.
However, the concrete class of the object is LinkedList, that contains more methods, some of them reflecting the structure of a linked list (for instance addFirst and addLast). But these methods are hidden because of the way you declared the variable. You chose to access the object through a given (restrictive) interface.
It may seem restrictive, but it also means that you can change your code at any time, and replace the concrete class LinkedList with any other class that implements the List interface, for example ArrayList.

Usually when you expose your API, you should hide the implementation details as much as possible and expose it via simple interfaces.
For e.g. Suppose that you give an api for adding two numbers.
Soln1 (Bad soln) Give the following class to client
public class Adder {
public void setA() {..}
public void setB() {..}
public int add() { return A + B; }
}
Soln 2 (better soln): Give the following interface to the client.
public interface Adder {
public int add(int a, int b);
}
Now why is soln 2 a better solution. If you had given user the first soln. The client is bound to the class Adder. Suppose later you have a new implementation of addition that could add the numbers in the cloud(over-imaginative :)), you may have to as the client to change their code to use the new class.
Instead if you just give them the interface, you could provide many implementation and have a factory mechanism to choose the suitable implementation.

Here's a very simple example that uses an interface:
public interface IBinaryOperation {
public int performOp(int a, int b);
}
private class MultiplicationProvider implements IBinaryOperation {
public int performOp(int a, int b) {
return a * b;
}
}
public class BinaryOperationProvider {
static IBinaryOperation getOperation(String name) {
if ("multiply".equals(name)) {
return new MultiplicationProvider();
} else if ("add".equals("name)) {
return new AdditionProvider();
} // ...
}
}
You would use this like:
IBinaryOperation op = BinaryOperationProvider.getOperation("multiply");
int c = op.performOp(a, b);
In the above example, MultiplicationProvider is completely private to the implementation of the API. The only public part is the IBinaryOperation interface, and the BinaryOperationProvider class.

Just to be clear, what's "hidden" is not the API, but the implementation. Most clients of List (to use an example above) don't need to know which kind of List is actually being used. (Just like most TCP/IP clients don't need to know anything in particular about the network they're using -- just that it supports the standard connection abstraction.)