We Keep Coding

Private Sorting Rule in a Stream Java

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));

I am making a safe, compile-time String.format(...) equivalent. An issue still persist

Most people understand the innate benefits that enum brings into a program verses the use of int or String. See here and here if you don't know. Anyway, I came across a problem that I wanted to solve that kind of is on the same playing field as using int or String to represent a constant instead of using an enum. This deals specifically with String.format(...).
With String.format, there seems to be a large opening for programmatic error that isn't found at compile-time. This can make fixing errors more complex and / or take longer.
This was the issue for me that I set out to fix (or hack a solution). I came close, but I am not close enough. For this problem, this is more certainly over-engineered. I understand that, but I just want to find a good compile-time solution to this, that provides the least amount of boiler-plate code.
I was writing some non-production code just to write code with the following rules.
Abstraction was key.
Readability was very important
Yet the simplest way to the above was preferred.
I am running on...
Java 7 / JDK 1.7
Android Studio 0.8.2
These are unsatisfactory
Is there a typesafe alternative to String.format(...)
How to get string.format to complain at compile time
My Solution
My solution uses the same idea that enums do. You should use enum types any time you need to represent a fixed set of constants...data sets where you know all possible values at compile time(docs.oracle.com). The first argument in String.format seems to fit that bill. You know the whole string beforehand, and you can split it up into several parts (or just one), so it can be represented as a fixed set of "constants".
By the way, my project is a simple calculator that you probably seen online already - 2 input numbers, 1 result, and 4 buttons (+, -, ×, and ÷). I also have a second duplicate calculator that has only 1 input number, but everything else is the same
Enum - Expression.java & DogeExpression.java
public enum Expression implements IExpression {
Number1 ("%s"),
Operator (" %s "),
Number2 ("%s"),
Result (" = %s");
protected String defaultFormat;
protected String updatedString = "";
private Expression(String format) { this.defaultFormat = format; }
// I think implementing this in ever enum is a necessary evil. Could use a switch statement instead. But it would be nice to have a default update method that you could overload if needed. Just wish the variables could be hidden.
public <T> boolean update(T value) {
String replaceValue
= this.equals(Expression.Operator)
? value.toString()
: Number.parse(value.toString()).toString();
this.updatedString = this.defaultFormat.replace("%s", replaceValue);
return true;
}
}
...and...
public enum DogeExpression implements IExpression {
Total ("Wow. Such Calculation. %s");
// Same general code as public enum Expression
}
Current Issue
IExpression.java - This is a HUGE issue. Without this fixed, my solution cannot work!!
public interface IExpression {
public <T> boolean update(T Value);
class Update { // I cannot have static methods in interfaces in Java 7. Workaround
public static String print() {
String replacedString = "";
// for (Expression expression : Expression.values()) { // ISSUE!! Switch to this for Expression
for (DogeExpression expression : DogeExpression.values()) {
replacedString += expression.updatedString;
}
return replacedString;
}
}
}
So Why Is This An Issues
With IExpression.java, this had to hacked to work with Java 7. I feel that Java 8 would have played a lot nicer with me. However, the issue I am having is paramount to getting my current implementation working The issue is that IExpression does not know which enum to iterate through. So I have to comment / uncomment code to get it to work now.
How can I fix the above issue??

How about something like this:
public enum Operator {
addition("+"),
subtraction("-"),
multiplication("x"),
division("÷");
private final String expressed;
private Operator(String expressed) { this.expressed = expressed; }
public String expressedAs() { return this.expressed; }
}
public class ExpressionBuilder {
private Number n1;
private Number n2;
private Operator o1;
private Number r;
public void setN1(Number n1) { this.n1 = n1; }
public void setN2(Number n2) { this.n2 = n2; }
public void setO1(Operator o1) { this.o1 = o1; }
public void setR(Number r) { this.r = r; }
public String build() {
final StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.append(format(n1));
sb.append(o1.expressedAs());
sb.append(format(n2));
sb.append(" = ");
sb.append(format(r));
return sb.toString();
}
private String format(Number n) {
return n.toString(); // Could use java.text.NumberFormat
}
}

Looking to associate strings to ints in a cleaner/more efficient way

How can I improve this?
The relationship is one to one and continuous on [-1,5] so i was thinking of using enum, but I'm not sure how to compare a string value to an enum value.
If there is any better way to do this, please suggest.
Thanks!
private int evaluateWord(String sval) {
if (sval.equals("program"))
return 1;
else if (sval.equals("begin"))
return 2;
else if (sval.equals("end"))
return 3;
else if (sval.equals("int"))
return 4;
else if (sval.equals("if"))
return 5;
else
System.exit(0);

Have you considered stuffing the mapping into a HashMap once, and then just querying the map?
For example, something like this:
private static final Map<String,Integer> m_map = new HashMap<String,Integer>();
static {
m_map.put( "program", 1 );
m_map.put( "begin", 2 );
m_map.put( "end", 3 );
m_map.put( "int", 4 );
m_map.put( "if", 5 );
}
private int evaluateWord(String sval) {
Integer value = m_map.get( sval );
if ( null != value ) {
return value;
}
else {
System.exit(0);
}
}
By the way, it looks as if you're writing a parser. It can be reasonable to write a parser by hand. Another option to consider, unless you have a good reason to write it by hand, is a parser generator like ANTLR.

Using an enumeration:
enum Word {
PROGRAM(1,"program"),
BEGIN(2,"begin"),
END(3,"end"),
INT(4,"int"),
IF(5,"if");
private final int value;
private final String representation;
Word(int value, String representation)
{
this.value = value;
this.representation = representation;
}
public int value()
{ return value; }
private static Map<String, Word> fromRep =
new HashMap<String, EnumExample2.Word>();
public static Word fromRepresentation(String rep) {
if (!validRep(rep)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("No rep: "+rep);
}
return fromRep.get(rep);
}
public static boolean validRep(String rep)
{ return fromRep.get(rep) != null; }
static {
for (Word word : Word.values()) {
fromRep.put(word.representation, word);
}
}
}
Then your logic is:
private int evaluateWord(String sval) {
if (!Word.validRep(sval)) {
System.exit(0);
}
return Word.fromRepresentation(sval).value();
}

A hashmap could work:
private static HashMap<String, Integer> lookup = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
static {
lookup.put("program", 1);
lookup.put("being", 2);
lookup.put("end", 3);
lookup.put("int", 4);
lookup.put("if", 5);
}
private int evaluateWord(String sval) {
if ( lookup.containsKey(sval) ) {
return lookup.get(sval);
}
System.exit(0);
}

This is what a map is for;
Create a HashMap, add key and values to the map like
wordMap.put("program", Integer.valueOf(1));
....
then, to get the value do
Integer val = wordMap.get(sval);

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about keeping something like this ultra efficient, but there is a change you could make. If the word you pass is the last word you check for then your program ends up performing all of the checks in your function. This shouldn't be a problem in this case, but generally you don't want to flood your program with if statements, especially if you have a lot of cases.
Use a hashtable and just insert pairs. This way, all of your evaluateWord calls will return in amortized constant time. :)
Good luck!

Why do you need a (very subjective) "cleaner" way?
You could get more efficiency from using a hash lookup but you'd want to be certain it's called quite a bit to make the extra coding effort worthwhile. If it's something that happens infrequently (and, by that, I mean something like less than once a second), it's not worth doing (YAGNI).
One thing you might want to do for better looking code (if that's important) is to ditch the else bits, they're totally unnecessary:
private int evaluateWord(String sval) {
if (sval.equals("program")) return 1;
if (sval.equals("begin")) return 2;
if (sval.equals("end")) return 3;
if (sval.equals("int")) return 4;
if (sval.equals("if")) return 5;
System.exit(0);
}

You could just use an array or hashmap to map the enum values to the string values.

Inspired by your enum comment, I present the following. It's a bit hackish, but:
enum Word
{
PROGRAM (1), BEGIN (2), END (3), INT (4), IF (5);
public int value;
public Word (int value)
{
this.value = value;
}
};
int evaluateWord (String word)
{
return Word.valueOf(word.toUpperCase( )).value;
}
I love Java enums because you can do things like this. This is especially useful if you later want to (for example) add a unique behaviour for each word, or to maintain a long list of words. Note though that it is case insensitive.
Or, alternately:
enum Word
{
PROGRAM, BEGIN, END, INT, IF;
};
int evaluateWord (String word)
{
return Word.valueOf(word.toUpperCase( )).ordinal( ) + 1;
}

Can I decorate Joiner class of Guava

I have a List<String> and we are using Joiner to get the comma separated presentation of that List but now we need to do little enhancement, We need to capitalize the values in the List. Now the code was -
String str = Joiner.on(',').skipNulls().join(myValueList);
But now as I need to capitalize the Strings present in values I need to iterate it first to capitalize and then pass to Joiner to join, but I den't think this is a good approach as it'll iterate the List twice, one to capitalize and then Joiner will iterate to Join.
Is there any other utility method that I'm missing which may do this in one iteration.
How will you do it with Guava?

You can use Iterables.transform()
Iterable<String> upperStrings = Iterables.transform(myValueList, new Function<String,String>() {
public String apply(String input) {
// any transformation possible here.
return (input == null) ? null : input.toUpperCase();
}
});
Str str = Joiner.on(',').skipNulls().join(upperStrings);

About Joachim Sauer's answer:
it can be made a lot less verbose if you move the Function to a place where it can be re-used, in Guava the typical scenario would be to use an enum:
public enum StringTransformations implements Function<String, String>{
LOWERCASE{
#Override
protected String process(final String input){
return input.toLowerCase();
}
},
UPPERCASE{
#Override
protected String process(final String input){
return input.toUpperCase();
}
}
// possibly more transformations here
;
#Override
public String apply(final String input){
return input == null ? null : process(input);
}
protected abstract String process(String input);
}
Now the client code looks like this:
String str =
Joiner
.on(',')
.skipNulls()
.join(
Iterables.transform(myValueList,
StringTransformations.UPPERCASE));
Which I'd call much more readable.
Of course it would be even better (in terms of both memory usage and performance) if you introduced a constant for your Joiner:
private static final Joiner COMMA_JOINER = Joiner.on(',').skipNulls();
// ...
String str = COMMA_JOINER.join(
Iterables.transform(myValueList,
StringTransformations.UPPERCASE));

How about the following?
Joiner.on(',').skipNulls().join(myValueList).toUpperCase()

Convert from enum ordinal to enum type

I've the enum type ReportTypeEnum that get passed between methods in all my classes but I then need to pass this on the URL so I use the ordinal method to get the int value. After I get it in my other JSP page, I need to convert it to back to an ReportTypeEnum so that I can continue passing it.
How can I convert ordinal to the ReportTypeEnum?
Using Java 6 SE.

To convert an ordinal into its enum representation you might want to do this:
ReportTypeEnum value = ReportTypeEnum.values()[ordinal];
Please notice the array bounds.
Note that every call to values() returns a newly cloned array which might impact performance in a negative way. You may want to cache the array if it's going to be called often.
Code example on how to cache values().
This answer was edited to include the feedback given inside the comments

This is almost certainly a bad idea. Certainly if the ordinal is de-facto persisted (e.g. because someone has bookmarked the URL) - it means that you must always preserve the enum ordering in future, which may not be obvious to code maintainers down the line.
Why not encode the enum using myEnumValue.name() (and decode via ReportTypeEnum.valueOf(s)) instead?

If I'm going to be using values() a lot:
enum Suit {
Hearts, Diamonds, Spades, Clubs;
public static final Suit values[] = values();
}
Meanwhile wherever.java:
Suit suit = Suit.values[ordinal];
If you want the array to be private, be my guest:
private static final Suit values[] = values();
public static Suit get(int ordinal) { return values[ordinal]; }
...
Suit suit = Suit.get(ordinal);
Mind your array bounds.

I agree with most people that using ordinal is probably a bad idea. I usually solve this problem by giving the enum a private constructor that can take for example a DB value then create a static fromDbValue function similar to the one in Jan's answer.
public enum ReportTypeEnum {
R1(1),
R2(2),
R3(3),
R4(4),
R5(5),
R6(6),
R7(7),
R8(8);
private static Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(ReportEnumType.class);
private static Map<Integer, ReportTypeEnum> lookup;
private Integer dbValue;
private ReportTypeEnum(Integer dbValue) {
this.dbValue = dbValue;
}
static {
try {
ReportTypeEnum[] vals = ReportTypeEnum.values();
lookup = new HashMap<Integer, ReportTypeEnum>(vals.length);
for (ReportTypeEnum rpt: vals)
lookup.put(rpt.getDbValue(), rpt);
}
catch (Exception e) {
// Careful, if any exception is thrown out of a static block, the class
// won't be initialized
log.error("Unexpected exception initializing " + ReportTypeEnum.class, e);
}
}
public static ReportTypeEnum fromDbValue(Integer dbValue) {
return lookup.get(dbValue);
}
public Integer getDbValue() {
return this.dbValue;
}
}
Now you can change the order without changing the lookup and vice versa.

You could use a static lookup table:
public enum Suit {
spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs;
private static final Map<Integer, Suit> lookup = new HashMap<Integer, Suit>();
static {
int ordinal = 0;
for (Suit suit : EnumSet.allOf(Suit.class)) {
lookup.put(ordinal, suit);
ordinal+= 1;
}
}
public Suit fromOrdinal(int ordinal) {
return lookup.get(ordinal);
}
}

This is what I use. I make no pretense that it's far less "efficient" than the simpler solutions above. What it does do is provide a much clearer exception message than "ArrayIndexOutOfBounds" when an invalid ordinal value is used in the solution above.
It utilizes the fact that EnumSet javadoc specifies the iterator returns elements in their natural order. There's an assert if that's not correct.
The JUnit4 Test demonstrates how it's used.
/**
* convert ordinal to Enum
* #param clzz may not be null
* #param ordinal
* #return e with e.ordinal( ) == ordinal
* #throws IllegalArgumentException if ordinal out of range
*/
public static <E extends Enum<E> > E lookupEnum(Class<E> clzz, int ordinal) {
EnumSet<E> set = EnumSet.allOf(clzz);
if (ordinal < set.size()) {
Iterator<E> iter = set.iterator();
for (int i = 0; i < ordinal; i++) {
iter.next();
}
E rval = iter.next();
assert(rval.ordinal() == ordinal);
return rval;
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid value " + ordinal + " for " + clzz.getName( ) + ", must be < " + set.size());
}
#Test
public void lookupTest( ) {
java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit tu = lookupEnum(TimeUnit.class, 3);
System.out.println(tu);
}

Safety first (with Kotlin):
// Default to null
EnumName.values().getOrNull(ordinal)
// Default to a value
EnumName.values().getOrElse(ordinal) { EnumName.MyValue }

This is what I do on Android with Proguard:
public enum SomeStatus {
UNINITIALIZED, STATUS_1, RESERVED_1, STATUS_2, RESERVED_2, STATUS_3;//do not change order
private static SomeStatus[] values = null;
public static SomeStatus fromInteger(int i) {
if(SomeStatus.values == null) {
SomeStatus.values = SomeStatus.values();
}
if (i < 0) return SomeStatus.values[0];
if (i >= SomeStatus.values.length) return SomeStatus.values[0];
return SomeStatus.values[i];
}
}
it's short and I don't need to worry about having an exception in Proguard

You can define a simple method like:
public enum Alphabet{
A,B,C,D;
public static Alphabet get(int index){
return Alphabet.values()[index];
}
}
And use it like:
System.out.println(Alphabet.get(2));

public enum Suit implements java.io.Serializable, Comparable<Suit>{
spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs;
private static final Suit [] lookup = Suit.values();
public Suit fromOrdinal(int ordinal) {
if(ordinal< 1 || ordinal> 3) return null;
return lookup[value-1];
}
}
the test class
public class MainTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Suit d3 = Suit.diamonds;
Suit d3Test = Suit.fromOrdinal(2);
if(d3.equals(d3Test)){
System.out.println("Susses");
}else System.out.println("Fails");
}
}
I appreciate that you share with us if you have a more efficient code, My enum is huge and constantly called thousands of times.

So one way is to doExampleEnum valueOfOrdinal = ExampleEnum.values()[ordinal]; which works and its easy, however,
as mentioned before, ExampleEnum.values() returns a new cloned array for every call. That can be unnecessarily expensive. We can solve that by caching the array like so ExampleEnum[] values = values(). It is also "dangerous" to allow our cached array to be modified. Someone could write ExampleEnum.values[0] = ExampleEnum.type2; So I would make it private with an accessor method that does not do extra copying.
private enum ExampleEnum{
type0, type1, type2, type3;
private static final ExampleEnum[] values = values();
public static ExampleEnum value(int ord) {
return values[ord];
}
}
You would use ExampleEnum.value(ordinal) to get the enum value associated with ordinal

There is an Easy and Bad way and there is a fairly easy and right way.
First, the easy and bad (those are usually very popular). Enum class method returns an array of all available instances via the values() method and you can access the enum object via array index.
RenderingMode mode = RenderingMode.values()[index];
//Enum Class somewhere else
public enum RenderingMode
{
PLAYING,
PREVIEW,
VIEW_SOLUTION;
}
//RenderingMode.values()[0] will return RenderingMode.PLAYING
//RenderingMode.values()[1] will return RenderingMode.PREVIEW
//Why this is bad? Because it is linked to order of declaration.
//If you later changed the order here, it will impact all your existing logic around this.
public enum RenderingMode
{
PREVIEW,
VIEW_SOLUTION,
PLAYING;
}
//Now
//RenderingMode.values()[0] will return RenderingMode.PREVIEW
//RenderingMode.values()[1] will return RenderingMode.VIEW_SOLUTION
Here is the right way to do it.
Create a static method fromInt in your enum class.
public enum RenderingMode
{
PLAYING,
PREVIEW,
VIEW_SOLUTION;
public static RenderingModefromInt(int index)
{
//this is independent of order of declaration
switch (index)
{
case 0: return PLAYING;
case 1: return PREVIEW;
case 2: return VIEW_SOLUTION;
}
//Consider throwing Exception here
return null;
}
}

public enum Status {
STATUS_1, STATUS_2, STATUS_3, STATUS_4;
public static Status getStatusByOrdinal(int ordinal) {
for (Status status : values()) {
if (status.ordinal() == ordinal) {
return status;
}
}
return STATUS_1;
}
}

In this way you can not depend on compile-time generics resolution(so having an enum class instance you can create whenever enum you want, even those types created with Class.forMame)
public Object getInstance(Class enumClazz, int ordinal) throws Exception {
Object[] allEnums = enumClazz.getDeclaredMethod("values", Object[].class).invoke(null, null);
return allEnums[ordinal];
}

Every enum has name(), which gives a string with the name of enum member.
Given enum Suit{Heart, Spade, Club, Diamond}, Suit.Heart.name() will give Heart.
Every enum has a valueOf() method, which takes an enum type and a string, to perform the reverse operation:
Enum.valueOf(Suit.class, "Heart") returns Suit.Heart.
Why anyone would use ordinals is beyond me. It may be nanoseconds faster, but it is not safe, if the enum members change, as another developer may not be aware some code is relying on ordinal values (especially in the JSP page cited in the question, network and database overhead completely dominates the time, not using an integer over a string).