I'm writing a method that accepts a UUID to represent items in an XML. What's the best way to special-purpose a value that represents "all" or "none"? I think it may be best not to make up UUIDs to represent all or none. Would I be better off creating a wrapper class that contains private variable flags for all or none?
You could use an enum like,
enum SelectionType {
ONE, ALL, NONE;
}
I think the cleanest implementation would be an array (or List) of UUIDs. However this assumes you actually know "all" of the UUIDs. "None"is covered. For "all", if you don't know all the UUIDs, have null be a special case, or else use a special constant. e.g.
public static final UUID[] ALL = new UUID[0];
And in your code
if (inArray == ALL)
handleAllCase();
else
onlyHandleUUIDsInArray(inArray);
Another possibility would be a range of UUIDs, with min and max. If max equals min it means "one", if max less than min it means "none", and for all you set min to the smallest possible UUID and max to the maximum.
Finally, a quick and dirty, but understandable approach might be to use null for none and a special value like "*" for all.
Related
I'm using trove4j for its primitives collections. I notice it has constructors like
public TLongArrayList( int capacity, long no_entry_value )
where no_entry_value represents null. The default value is zero.
The null value in collections, like Set specially, is very important, according to my cognition. But I found trove4j did't use this value much after I glanced at the source code.
So I'm confused that should I care about that value. Should I elaborately pick a value that would never occur in my programs, or just leave it to be default zero.
This is kind of one of those things that you know you need when you need it. It comes down to whether or not you want to just call get(...) and know whether or not the value was in the map without calling containsKey(...). That's where the "no entry value" comes in because that is what is returned in the case where you didn't store that key in your map. The default is 0, so if you never store a value of 0 in your map, that will work for checks. But of course that can be a bit risky. Typical values would be 0, -1, Integer.MAX_VALUE... things like that.
If there is no value that you can guarantee will never be in your map, then you need to make sure you check with containsKey before you trust the returned value. You can minimize the overhead of doing two lookups with something like:
int value = my_map.get( my_key );
// NOTE: Assuming no entry value of 0
if ( value == 0 && !my_map.containsKey( my_key ) ) {
// value wasn't present
}
else {
// value was present
}
That's a performance improvement over calling containsKey every time before doing a get.
tl;dr;
Why using
string myVariable = "someInitialValueDifferentThanUserValue99999999999";
as default value is wrong?
explanation of situation:
I had a discussion with a colleague at my workplace.
He proposed to use some trash value as default in order to differentiate it from user value.
An easy example it would be like this:
string myVariable = "someInitialValueDifferentThanUserValue99999999999";
...
if(myVariable == "someInitialValueDifferentThanUserValue99999999999")
{
...
}
This is quite obvious and intuitive for me that this is wrong.
But I could not give a nice argument for this, beyond that:
this is not professional.
there is a slight chance that someone would input the same value.
Once I read that if you have such a situation your architecture or programming habits are wrong.
edit:
Thank you for the answers. I found a solution that satisfied me, so I share with the others:
It is good to make a bool guard value that indicates if the initialization of a specific object has been accomplished.
And based on this private bool variable I can deduce if I play with a string that is default empty value "" from my mechanism (that is during initialization) or empty value from the user.
For me, this is a more elegant way.
Optional
Optional can be used.
Returns an empty Optional instance. No value is present for this Optional.
API Note:
Though it may be tempting to do so, avoid testing if an object is empty by comparing with == against instances returned by Option.empty(). There is no guarantee that it is a singleton. Instead, use isPresent().
Ref: Optional
Custom escape sequence shared by server and client
Define default value
When the user enter's the default value, escape the user value
Use a marker character
Always define the first character as the marker character
Take decision based on this character and strip this character for any actual comparison
Define clear boundaries for the check as propagating this character across multiple abstractions can lead to code maintenance issues.
Small elaboration on "It's not professional":
It's often a bad idea, because
it wastes memory when not a constant (at least in Java - of course, unless you're working with very limited space that's negligible).
Even as constant it may introduce ambiguity once you have more classes, packages or projects ("Was it NO_INPUT, INPUT_NOT_PROVIDED, INPUT_NONE?")
usually it's a sign that there will be no standardized scope-bound Defined_Marker_Character in the Project Documentation like suggested in the other answers
it introduces ambiguity for how to deal with deciding if an input has been provided or not
In the end you will either have a lot of varying NO_INPUT constants in different classes or end up with a self-made SthUtility class that defines one constant SthUtility.NO_INPUT and a static method boolean SthUtility.isInputEmpty(...) that compares a given input against that constant, which basically is reinventing Optional. And you will be copy-pasting that one class into every of your projects.
There is really no need as you can do the following as of Java 11 which was four releases ago.
String value = "";
// true only if length == 0
if (value.isEmpty()) {
System.out.println("Value is empty");
}
String value = " ";
// true if empty or contains only white space
if (value.isBlank()) {
System.out.println("Value is blank");
}
And I prefer to limit uses of such strings that can be searched in the class file that might possibly lead to exploitation of the code.
The question was asking me to return set containing all the possible combination of strings made up of "cc" and "ddd" for given length n.
so for example if the length given was 5 then set would include "ccddd" and "dddcc".
and length 6 would return set containing "cccccc","dddddd"
and length 7 would return set contating "ccdddcc","dddcccc","ccccddd"
and length 12 will return 12 different combination and so on
However, set returned is empty.
Can you please help?
"Please understand extremeply poor coding style"
public static Set<String> set = new HashSet<String>();
public static Set<String> generateset(int n) {
String s = strings(n,n,"");
return set; // change this
}
public static String strings(int n,int size, String s){
if(n == 3){
s = s + ("cc");
return "";}
if(n == 2){
s = s + ("ddd");
return "";}
if(s.length() == size)
set.add(s);
return strings(n-3,size,s) + strings(n-2,size,s);
}
I think you'll need to rethink your approach. This is not an easy problem, so if you're extremely new to Java (and not extremely familiar with other programming languages), you may want to try some easier problems involving sets, lists, or other collections, before you tackle something like this.
Assuming you want to try it anyway: recursive problems like this require very clear thinking about how you want to accomplish the task. I think you have a general idea, but it needs to be much clearer. Here's how I would approach the problem:
(1) You want a method that returns a list (or set) of strings of length N. Your recursive method returns a single String, and as far as I can tell, you don't have a clear definition of what the resulting string is. (Clear definitions are very important in programming, but probably even more so when solving a complex recursive problem.)
(2) The strings will either begin with "cc" or "ddd". Thus, to form your resulting list, you need to:
(2a) Find all strings of length N-2. This is where you need a recursive call to get all strings of that length. Go through all strings in that list, and add "cc" to the front of each string.
(2b) Similarly, find all strings of length N-3 with a recursive call; go through all the strings in that list, and add "ddd" to the front.
(2c) The resulting list will be all the strings from steps (2a) and (2b).
(3) You need base cases. If N is 0 or 1, the resulting list will be empty. If N==2, it will have just one string, "cc"; if N==3, it will have just one string, "ddd".
You can use a Set instead of a list if you want, since the order won't matter.
Note that it's a bad idea to use a global list or set to hold the results. When a method is calling itself recursively, and every invocation of the method touches the same list or set, you will go insane trying to get everything to work. It's much easier if you let each recursive invocation hold its own local list with the results. Edit: This needs to be clarified. Using a global (i.e. instance field that is shared by all recursive invocations) collection to hold the final results is OK. But the approach I've outlined above involves a lot of intermediate results--i.e. if you want to find all strings whose length is 8, you will also be finding strings whose length is 6, 5, 4, ...; using a global to hold all of those would be painful.
The answer to why set is returned empty is simply follow the logic. Say you execute generateset(5); which will execute strings(5,5,"");:
First iteration strings(5,5,""); : (s.length() == size) is false hence nothing added to set
Second iteration strings(2,5,""); : (n == 2) is true, hence nothing added to set
Third iteration strings(3,5,""); : (n == 3) is true, hence nothing added
to set
So set remains un changed.
I am writing a program which will add a growing number or unique strings to a data structure. Once this is done, I later need to constantly check for existence of the string in it.
If I were to use an ArrayList I believe checking for the existence of some specified string would iterate through all items until a matching string is found (or reach the end and return false).
However, with a HashMap I know that in constant time I can simply use the key as a String and return any non-null object, making this operation faster. However, I am not keen on filling a HashMap where the value is completely arbitrary. Is there a readily available data structure that uses hash functions, but doesn't require a value to be placed?
If I were to use an ArrayList I believe checking for the existence of some specified string would iterate through all items until a matching string is found
Correct, checking a list for an item is linear in the number of entries of the list.
However, I am not keen on filling a HashMap where the value is completely arbitrary
You don't have to: Java provides a HashSet<T> class, which is very much like a HashMap without the value part.
You can put all your strings there, and then check for presence or absence of other strings in constant time;
Set<String> knownStrings = new HashSet<String>();
... // Fill the set with strings
if (knownString.contains(myString)) {
...
}
It depends on many factors, including the number of strings you have to feed into that data structure (do you know the number by advance, or have a basic idea?), and what you expect the hit/miss ratio to be.
A very efficient data structure to use is a trie or a radix tree; they are basically made for that. For an explanation of how they work, see the wikipedia entry (a followup to the radix tree definition is in this page). There are Java implementations (one of them is here; however I have a fixed set of strings to inject, which is why I use a builder).
If your number of strings is really huge and you don't expect a minimal miss ratio then you might also consider using a bloom filter; the problem however is that it is probabilistic; but you can get very quick answers to "not there". Here also, there are implementations in Java (Guava has an implementation for instance).
Otherwise, well, a HashSet...
A HashSet is probably the right answer, but if you choose (for simplicity, eg) to search a list it's probably more efficient to concatenate your words into a String with separators:
String wordList = "$word1$word2$word3$word4$...";
Then create a search argument with your word between the separators:
String searchArg = "$" + searchWord + "$";
Then search with, say, contains:
bool wordFound = wordList.contains(searchArg);
You can maybe make this a tiny bit more efficient by using StringBuilder to build the searchArg.
As others mentioned HashSet is the way to go. But if the size is going to be large and you are fine with false positives (checking if the username exists) you can use BloomFilters (probabilistic data structure) as well.
Given an array of numbers, I would like to create a number identifier that represents that combination as unique as possible.
For example:
int[] inputNumbers = { 543, 134, 998 };
int identifier = createIdentifier(inputNumbers);
System.out.println( identifier );
Output:
4532464234
-The returned number must be as unique as possible
-Ordering of the elements must influence the result
-The algorithm must return always the same result from the same input array
-The algorithm must be as fast as possible to be used alot in 'for' loops
The purpose of this algorithm, is to create a small value to be stored in a DB, and to be easily comparable. It is nothing critical so it's acceptable that some arrays of numbers return the same value, but that cases must be rare.
Can you suggest a good way to accomplish this?
The standard ( Java 7 ) implementation of Arrays.hashCode(int[]) has the required properties. It is implemented thus:
2938 public static int hashCode(int a[]) {
2939 if (a == null)
2940 return 0;
2941
2942 int result = 1;
2943 for (int element : a)
2944 result = 31 * result + element;
2945
2946 return result;
2947 }
As you can see, the implementation is fast, and the result depends on the order of the elements as well as the element values.
If there is a requirement that the hash values are the same across all Java platforms, I think you can rely on that being satisfied. The javadoc says that the method will return a value that is that same as you get when calling List<Integer>.hashcode() on an equivalent list. And the formula for that hashcode is specified.
Have a look at Arrays.hashCode(int[]), it is doing exactly this.
documentation
What you're looking for is the array's hash code.
int hash = Arrays.hashCode(new int[]{1, 2, 3, 4});
See also the Java API
I also say you are looking for some kind of hash function.
I don't know how much you will rely on point 3 The algorithm must return always the same result from the same input array, but this depends on the JVM implementation.
So depending on your use case you might run into some trouble (The solution then would be to use a extern hash library).
For further information take a look at this SO question: Java, Object.hashCode() result constant across all JVMs/Systems?
EDIT
I just read you want to store the values in a DB. In that case I would recommend you to use a extern hasing library that is reliable and guaranteed to yield the same value every time it is invoked. Otherwise you would have to re-hash your whole DB every time you start your application, to have it in a consistent state.
EDIT2
Since you are using only plain ints the hash value should be the same every time. As #Stephen C showed in his answer.