I'm having a following problem: I have to sort entities by enum parameter. The thing is, that enum name is not equivalent to its translated name, for example, the enum values can be:
enum Sample {
Bus, Car, Train
}
However, let's say in my language, Bus corresponds to pks, Car to auto, and Train to ciuchcia, co their order should be:
Car, Train, Bus and not Bus, Car, Train. It's just an example, my problem involves something like 10 different values.
The problem is, I can't get all the data, then perform a sort in Java, because the data is paginated. I tried to solve this problem by doing this in SQL (the data is from database view):
(CASE sample WHEN 'Car' THEN 1 WHEN 'Train' THEN 2 WHEN 'Bus' THEN 3 ELSE 0 END)
I'm sorting by number, and this solution works. However, I feel like this can be done better, and doesn't need to be modified each time I want to add something. Any help would be very appreciated.
If you can hard-code or populate the translation in the enum you can make the enum generate the query.
enum Sample {
Bus("pks"), Car("auto"), Train("ciuchcia");
private final String localName;
Sample(String localName) {
this.localName = localName;
}
private static final List<Sample> inLocalOrder = Arrays.stream(values())
.sorted((a,b) -> a.localName.compareTo(b.localName))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
public static CharSequence inLocalOrder() {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("(CASE");
int i = 1;
inLocalOrder.stream().forEach(a -> sb.append(" WHEN '"+a.name()+"' THEN "+i));
sb.append(" ELSE 0 END)");
return sb;
}
}
public void test(String[] args) {
System.out.println(Sample.inLocalOrder());
}
prints:
(CASE WHEN 'Car' THEN 1 WHEN 'Train' THEN 2 WHEN 'Bus' THEN 3 ELSE 0 END)
If the translations happen later then a minor adjustment should suffice.
First things first. Why you're using an Enum to sort stuff? I can't agree with this feature, but it's ok if you really need it.
I really appreciate #OldCurmudgeon's answer, but I would have done something different.
Instead of using the property value as the column name, I would use a method to request the correct column name (obviously I'm supposing that you don't have the entities mapped inside your code, so you're using an Enum to sort them). This way:
enum Sample {
Bus, Car, Train;
public String getColumnName() {
// GET IT FROM SOME RESOURCE OR REQUEST IT FROM ANOTHER CONTEXT OR JUST RETURN IT THE WAY IT IS
// YOU CAN USE A RESOURCE FILE TO MAP YOUR COLUMN NAME, SO IF THE ENTITY CHANGES, YOU DON'T NEED
// TO UPDATE YOUR CODE...
return "";
}
public static String getSortSQL(Map<Sample, Integer> samples) {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("(CASE");
samples.forEach((sample, number) -> addSampleNumberSQL(sb, sample, number));
return sb.append(" ELSE 0 END)").toString();
}
private static StringBuilder addSampleNumberSQL(StringBuilder sb, Sample sample, Integer number) {
return sb.append(" WHEN '").append(sample.getColumnName()).append("' THEN ").append(number);
}
}
As you can see, you can request your column name from any resource you want. But this implementation still weak because if you need to sort by any new column, you will need to add another Enum value. So I would implement something more powerfull, like a properties reader that read each property from the resource and a method that receive an String (mean the property itself) and a number (to sort by the number) so I would do something like this:
public static String getSortSQL(Map<String, Integer> properties) {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("(CASE");
properties.forEach((prop, number) -> addSampleNumberSQL(sb, prop, number));
return sb.append(" ELSE 0 END)").toString();
}
private static StringBuilder addSampleNumberSQL(StringBuilder sb, String property, Integer number) {
return sb.append(" WHEN '").append(property).append("' THEN ").append(number);
}
Hope it helps you...
Related
Hey if anyone has an idea I would be really thankfull.
I'm in a Java stream and i would like to sort my list that i'll be returning.
I need to sort the list via TradPrefis ( MyObject::getTradPrefix ).
But this would be way too easy. Because i want to sort following the number at the end of TradPrefix exampleTradPrefix_[NUMBER TO SORT]
Exemple : hello_1
test_2
...
still_there_22
Here is a piece of code so you can imagine easier.
public LinkedHashSet<WsQuestion> get(String quizId, String companyId) {
LinkedHashSet<QuizQuestionWithQuestion> toReturn = quizQuestionRepository.findAllQuizQuestionWithQuestionByQuizId(quizId);
return (toReturn.stream()
.map(this::createWsQuestion)
.sorted(comparing(WsQuestion::getTradPrefix.toString().length()))
.collect(Collectors.toCollection(LinkedHashSet::new)));
}
One method would simply be to split getTradPrefix().toString() by _ and parse the rightmost value as an int, and use it to sort the Stream:
public LinkedHashSet<WsQuestion> get(String quizId, String companyId) {
LinkedHashSet<QuizQuestionWithQuestion> toReturn = quizQuestionRepository.findAllQuizQuestionWithQuestionByQuizId(quizId);
return toReturn.stream()
.map(this::createWsQuestion)
.sorted(Comparator.comparingInt(question -> {
String[] args = question.getTradPrefix().toString().split("_");
return Integer.parseInt(args[args.length - 1]);
}))
.collect(Collectors.toCollection(LinkedHashSet::new));
}
If I where you I would simply put a method on the WsQuestion class, let's call it sort order:
public int getSortOrder() {
return Integer.valueOf(tradPrefix.substring(tradPrefix.lastIndexOf("_") + 1));
}
The Integer parse is needed since comparing strings would give "11" < "2" (thanks Holger for pointing this out). The lastIndexOf() makes sure that any number of underscores are allowed in tradPrefix, as long as there is at least one.
Then simply create a comparotor by using Comparator.comparingInt()
public LinkedHashSet<WsQuestion> get(String quizId, String companyId) {
LinkedHashSet<QuizQuestionWithQuestion> toReturn = quizQuestionRepository.findAllQuizQuestionWithQuestionByQuizId(quizId);
return (toReturn.stream()
.map(this::createWsQuestion)
.sorted(comparingInt(WsQuestion::getSortOrder))
.collect(Collectors.toCollection(LinkedHashSet::new)));
}
You can make a small Comparator like this:
private static final Comparator<String> questionComparator = Comparator.comparingInt(s -> {
String[] pieces = s.split("_");
return Integer.parseInt(pieces[pieces.length-1]);
});
Then use it in your sorted().
Having a separate Comparator will make your code more readable too, since you will be separating concerns.
return toReturn.stream()
.map(this::createWsQuestion)
.sorted(questionComparator)
.collect(Collectors.toCollection(LinkedHashSet::new));
Let say I have 2 classes:
public class Person
{
private String name;
private int age;
private Contact contact;
//getter & setter
}
public class Contact
{
private String phone;
private String email;
//getter & setter
}
With the classes above, I want to create 2 instances of Person class, with different field value. Then I want to compare some fields of 2 objects with their getter function, but I don't want to compare all fields.
For example, I want to compare the field name and phone, then I will store this 2 getter method to a list like something below:
List<WhatShouldBeTheDataType> funcList = new ArrayList<>();
funcList.add(MyClass::getName);
funcList.add(MyClass::getContact::getPhone) //I know this won't work, what should be the solution?
then loop through the funcList, pass the 2 objects I want to compare into the function, if the value not same, write something into the database. This can be easily done with ordinary if...else... way, but is it possible to do in Java 8 way?
Below is what I want to achieve in if...else... way:
if(person1.getName() != person2.getName())
{
//message format basically is: "fieldName + value of object 1 + value of object 2"
log.append("Name is different: " + person1.getName() + ", " + person2.getName());
}
if(person1.getContact.getPhone() != person2.getContact().getPhone())
{
log.append("Phone is different: " + person1.getContact.getPhone() + ", " + person2.getContact.getPhone());
}
//other if to compare other fields
It looks like Person and MyClass refer to the same thing in your question.
You need a Function<Person,String>, since your functions accept a Person instance and return a String:
List<Function<Person,String>> funcList = new ArrayList<>();
funcList.add(Person::getName);
funcList.add(p -> p.getContact().getPhone());
For the second function, you can't use a method reference, but you can use a lambda expression instead.
Given an instance of Person, you can apply your functions as follows:
Person instance = ...;
for (Function<Person,String> func : funcList) {
String value = func.apply(instance);
}
to complete Eran's code:
boolean isEqual(Person person1, Person person2){
for (Function<Person,String> function:functionList) {
if (!function.apply(person1).equals(function.apply(person2))) return false;
}
return true;
}
then use the returned boolean to check and update your database.
Although you can use a list of functions (as suggested in Eran's answer), using comparators directly is probably more appropriate for your use case.
You can alternatively use a chain of comparators, and then use the result of compare:
Comparator<Person> comparators = Comparator.comparing((Person p) -> p.getName())
.thenComparing((Person p) -> p.getContact().getPhone());
Person p1 = null, p2 = null;
if(0 != comparators.compare(person1, person2)) {
//p1 and p2 are different
}
Even simpler (and more natural, in my opinion), is overriding equals in Person, and checking if(!person1.equals(person2))
Edit (after update of the question):
Here's a version built on a function list, dynamically generating the log content by adding a field name list:
List<Function<Person, String>> functions =
Arrays.asList(Person::getName, p -> p.getContact().getPhone());
List<String> fieldNames = Arrays.asList("Name", "Phone");
IntStream.range(0, functions.size())
.filter(i -> functions.get(i).apply(person1)
.compareTo(functions.get(i).apply(person2)) != 0)
.mapToObj(i -> String.format("%s is different: %s, %s",
fieldNames.get(i),
functions.get(i).apply(person1),
functions.get(i).apply(person2)))
.forEach(log::append);
This rather takes advantage of the fact that String is already comparable, and avoids creating comparators altogether.
I have a java class in which I store an Enum.(shown at the bottom of this question) In this enum, I have a method named toCommaSeperatedString() who returns a comma separated String of the enums values. I am using a StringBuilder after reading some information on performance in this question here.
Is the way I am converting this enum's values into a commaSeperatedString the most efficient way of doing so, and if so, what would be the most efficient way to remove the extra comma at the last char of the String?
For example, my method returns 123, 456, however I would prefer 123, 456. If I wanted to return PROPERTY1, PROPERTY2 I could easily use Apache Commons library StringUtils.join(), however, I need to get one level lower by calling the getValue method when I am iterating through the String array.
public class TypeEnum {
public enum validTypes {
PROPERTY1("123"),
PROPERTY2("456");
private String value;
validTypes(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String getValue() {
return value;
}
public static boolean contains(String type) {
for (validTypes msgType : validTypes.values()) {
if (msgType.value.equals(type)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
public static String toCommaSeperatedString() {
StringBuilder commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes = new StringBuilder();
for(validTypes msgType : validTypes.values()) {
commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.append(msgType.getValue() + ", ");
}
return commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.toString();
}
}
}
I wouldn't worry much about efficiency. It's simple enough to do this that it will be fast, provided you don't do it in a crazy way. If this is the most significant performance bottleneck in your code, I would be amazed.
I'd do it something like this:
return Arrays.stream(TypeEnum.values())
.map(t -> t.value)
.collect(Collectors.joining(','));
Cache it if you want; but that's probably not going to make a huge difference.
A common pattern for the trailing comma problem I see is something like
String[] values = {"A", "B", "C"};
boolean is_first = true;
StringBuilder commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes = new StringBuilder();
for(String value : values){
if(is_first){
is_first = false;
}
else{
commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.append(',');
}
commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.append(value);
}
System.out.println(commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.toString());
which results in
A,B,C
Combining this with the answers about using a static block to initialize a static final field will probably give the best performance.
The most efficient code is code that doesn't run. This answer can't ever change, so run that code as you have it once when creating the enums. Take the hit once, return the calculated answer every other time somebody asks for it. The savings in doing that would be far greater in the long term over worrying about how specifically to construct the string, so use whatever is clearest to you (write code for humans to read).
For example:
public enum ValidTypes {
PROPERTY1("123"),
PROPERTY2("345");
private final static String asString = calculateString();
private final String value;
private static String calculateString() {
return // Do your work here.
}
ValidTypes(final String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public static String toCommaSeparatedString() {
return asString;
}
}
If you have to call this static method thousand and thousand of times on a short period, you may worry about performance and you should first check that this has a performance cost.
The JVM performs at runtime many optimizations.
So finally you could write more complex code without added value.
Anyway, the actual thing that you should do is storing the String returned by toCommaSeperatedString and returned the same instance.
Enum are constant values. So caching them is not a problem.
You could use a static initializer that values a static String field.
About the , character, just remove it after the loop.
public enum validTypes {
PROPERTY1("123"), PROPERTY2("456");
private static String valueSeparatedByComma;
static {
StringBuilder commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes = new StringBuilder();
for (validTypes msgType : validTypes.values()) {
commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.append(msgType.getValue());
commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.append(",");
}
commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.deleteCharAt
(commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.length()-1);
valueSeparatedByComma = commaSeperatedValidMsgTypes.toString();
}
public static String getvalueSeparatedByComma() {
return valueSeparatedByComma;
}
I usually add a static method on the enum class itself:
public enum Animal {
CAT, DOG, LION;
public static String possibleValues() {
return Arrays.stream(Animal.values())
.map(Enum::toString)
.collect(Collectors.joining(","));
}
}
So I can use it like String possibleValues = Animal.possibleValues();
Is it possible to use an enumeration in the following circumstance:
Let’s say you have a certain amount of predefined 'read types'. Example read types could be: Diagnostic, KWH, MaxDemand, OnPeak, etc. And for each of these read types, there’s a ‘TIMTagNumber’ which is essientally a protocol for retrieving each predefined read type.
For example, TIMTagNumber 1100 would retrieve the read type Diagnostic
TIMTagNumber 1300 would retrieve the read type KWH.
The problem is that a predefined read type can sometimes be retrieved by more than one TIMTagNumber.
I want to create an enumeration ReadType that would define each read type and all TIMTagNumbers that can be used to retrieve that read.
Can you use an enumeration in this way?
public enum ReadType{
KWH(1300)
Diagnostic(1100)
ReadType3(1400, 1401) // This read can be retrieved by both 1400 and 1401
}
If an enumeration is not the way to go, is there an elegant or efficient way to define these read types? The overall desired outcome of all this essientally is being recognizing what type of read it is based on the TIMTagNumbers.
I.E. Given 1400 OR 1401 you would know that it's 'ReadType3'.
Can you do this? Yes. Whether it's the right decision will depend on whether you want to couple these TIMTagNumbers to the read type. If not, a simple Map<Integer, ReadType> will probably suffice.
Here's how you could do it:
public static enum MyEnum {
KWH(1300),
Diagnostic(1100),
ReadType3(1400, 1401);
private Set<Integer> timTagNumbers;
MyEnum(Integer... timTagNumbers) {
this.timTagNumbers = new HashSet<Integer>(Arrays.asList(timTagNumbers));
//add check to make sure that values are unique across all instances
}
public static MyEnum forTIMTagNumber(int num) {
for ( MyEnum readType : values() ) {
if ( readType.timTagNumbers.contains(num) ) {
return readType;
}
}
throw new NoSuchElementException("No ReadType matching TIMTagNumber " + num);
}
}
//...
int timTagNumber = 1400;
ReadType readType = ReadType.forTIMTagNumber(timTagNumber);
As I said above, this style works well when the data and the enum types are intrinsically coupled already. It would not be good for when the enum type is decoupled from the mapped values (e.g. the values are used for one of many ways of serializing the enum) or if the values are configuration-specific or even dynamic (e.g. if they were prices on an item). In these cases it is usually best to externalize this mapping in an EnumMap or Map.
public enum ReadType {
KWH(1300),
Diagnostic(1100),
ReadType3(1400, 1401);
private int[] timTagNumbers;
private ReadType(int ... numbers) {
this.timTagNumbers = numbers;
}
public int[] getTimTagNumbers() {
return timTagNumbers;
}
public static ReadType forTimTagNumber(int n) {
for (ReadType type : values()) {
if (Arrays.binarySearch(type.timTagNumbers, n) != -1) {
return type;
}
}
throw new NoSucheElementException(); // if not found
}
With this you can do
int[] timTagNumbers = ReadType.Diagnostic.getTimTagNumbers(); // [ 1100 ]
and
ReadType type3 = ReadType.forTimTagNumber(1401); // ReadType.ReadType3
You can indeed use enumerations in that way, but your example is missing a private field and a constructor.
Something like:
public enum Bla{
CASE1(100),CASE2(200);
private int amount;
private Bla(int amount) {
this.amount = amount;
}
public Bla getByValue(int value){
switch (value) {
case 100: return CASE1;
case 200: return CASE2;
}
return null;
}
}
I've included a "reverse lookup" method that returns an Enum given the value.
The main advantage is that you can have the rest of your code using "Bla" instead of int's which will guarantee type-safety on your operations, basically, it'll make impossible to pass an invalid int value as a method parameter (and you can use switch statements over enums too, and that's pretty awesome in some usage scenarios).
EDIT: I noticed after I posted that you need more then one int to specify the Enum, but the same logic applies, with the due changes in the methods, of course.
You could do something like the following, when you supply values in the parentheses where the enum variable is declared, it is calling the constructor of the enum. You need to create a different method in the enum itself to get the enum type from the integer value. See below.
public enum ReadType {
KWH(), DIAGNOSTIC(), READTYPE3();
public ReadType getReadType(int num) {
ReadType toReturn = KWH;
switch (num) {
case 1300:
toReturn = KWH;
break;
case 1100:
toReturn = DIAGNOSTIC;
break;
case 1400:
toReturn = READTYPE3;
break;
case 1401:
toReturn = READTYPE3;
break;
}
return toReturn;
}
If you can impose some restrictions like no more than 2 tags can be associated with a read type and each tag is no greater than 2^15, then you can store the two numbers into 1 integer. See this S/O post for more details.
I have some enums like this:
public enum Classification {
UNKNOWN("Unknown"),
DELETION("Deletion"),
DUPLICATION("Duplication"), ....
but some of them have like 20 members, so currently in code I deal with them with huge if/else blocks like this:
int classification= rs.getInt("classification");
if (classification == Classification.UNKNOWN.ordinal()) {
variant.setClassification(Classification.UNKNOWN);
} else if (classification == Classification.DELETION.ordinal()) {
variant.setClassification(Classification.DELETION);
( rs is from JDBC tho).
Does Java have a better way this these big if/else blocks to do what I am doing? some sorting of looping through it?
You could use Enum#values() to get all enum values in an array. The ordinal maps 1:1 to the array index. Add the following method fo your Classification enum:
public static Classification of(int ordinal) {
if (0 <= ordinal && ordinal < values().length) {
return values()[ordinal];
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid ordinal " + ordinal);
}
and use it as follows
Classification classification = Classification.of(rs.getInt("classification"));
// ...
However, using enum's ordinal for this is not the best practice. What if some developer rearranges the enum's values or adds/removes values? Even the javadoc warns that it has usually no use for developers. Rather give each enum value a fixed identifier. You could pass it in as an additional argument of the enum constructor argument. You could even use enum's String representation for that.
UNKNOWN(1, "Unknown"),
DELETION(2, "Deletion"),
DUPLICATION(3, "Duplication"),
// ...
Then use that value for DB instead and modify the of() method to walk through them in a foreach loop:
public static Classification of(int id) {
for (Classification classification : values()) {
if (classification.id == id) {
return classification;
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid id " + id);
}
If the db value is the ordinal of the Enum then:
int classification= rs.getInt("classification");
variant.setClassification(Classification.values()[classification]);
I'll leave bounds checking as an exercise for the reader.
You can loop through an enumeration’s values via the object the someEnum.values() method returns:
for (Classification clz : Classification.values()) doSomethingWith(clz);
found here
I don’t know how exactly I can help you, since i don’t know what rs.getInt(String) does.
It seems to give back an Integer representing a enum value of Classification, but why?
Use variant.setClassification(YourEnumClassHere.values()[classification]). Enum.values() returns an array of all the declared enums in that class.
Instead of storing ordinal, you can store the name and use the valueOf method to convert the String back to your Enum type.
If you willing and able to store a string representation (this is a good technique) of the ENUM in your database, see Reference from Gareth Davis in comments above. If you are unwilling and/or unable to store a string representation and must continue with an ordinal representation, I suggest that a Map is called for. Here is some example code:
public class EnumMap
{
private enum FistSounds
{
Blam, Kapow, Zowie, Biff;
private static Map<Integer, FistSounds> ordinalMap = new HashMap<Integer, FistSounds>();
static
{
ordinalMap.put(Blam.ordinal(), Blam);
ordinalMap.put(Kapow.ordinal(), Kapow);
ordinalMap.put(Zowie.ordinal(), Zowie);
ordinalMap.put(Biff.ordinal(), Biff);
}
public static final FistSounds getByOrdinal(final int enumIndex)
{
return ordinalMap.get(enumIndex);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
FistSounds fistSound;
for (int index = -1; index < 5; ++index)
{
fistSound = FistSounds.getByOrdinal(index);
System.out.print("Ordinal: ");
System.out.print(index);
System.out.print(", FistSound: ");
System.out.println(fistSound);
}
}
}
I'd recommend using a switch statement, if the logic to execute is different for each case....
do as #Gareth Davis instructs and then just have a switch statement and handle each case as required.
Enums are also eligible to be used in switch statements see here