I'm trying to implement a Set which is ordered by the count of additions like this:
public class App {
public static void main(String args[]) {
FrequencyOrderedTreeSet<String> set = new FrequencyOrderedTreeSet<String>();
set.add("bar");
set.add("foo");
set.add("foo");
Iterator<String> i = set.iterator();
while (i.hasNext()) {
System.out.print(i.next());
}
// prints "foobar"
}
}
I've created a protected class FrequencyOrderedTreeSet.Element which implements Comparable and has a T entry and an int frequency property and extended TreeSet<FrequencyOrderedTreeSet.Element> with FrequencyOrderedTreeSet<T> and overrode the compareTo and equals methods on the Element.
One problem is that I can't override the add() method because of type erasure problems and also I can't call instanceof Element in the equals method, because in case object given to it is an Element, I have to compare their entries, but if it's not, I have to compare the object itself to this.entry.
In the add method I create a new element, find the element with the same entry in the set, set the frequency on the new element to "old+1", remove the old one and add the new one. I'm not even sure this is the best way to do this or if it would work even because the other problems I described.
The question is: what's the best way to implement such data structure? In case I'm somehow on the right track - how can I circumvent the problems I've mentioned above?
Here's a basic implementation. It's not the most optimal and will take some more work if you want to implement the full Set interface.
public class FrequencySet<T> implements Iterable<T>
{
private TreeSet<T> set;
private HashMap<T, Integer> elements = new HashMap<T, Integer>();
public FrequencySet()
{
set = new TreeSet<T>(new Comparator<T>()
{
public int compare(T o1, T o2)
{
return elements.get(o2)-elements.get(o1);
}
});
}
public void add(T t)
{
Integer i = elements.get(t);
elements.put(t, i == null ? 1 : i+1);
set.remove(t);
set.add(t);
}
public Iterator<T> iterator() {return set.iterator();}
public static void main(String [] args)
{
FrequencySet<String> fset = new FrequencySet<String>();
fset.add("foo");
fset.add("bar");
fset.add("foo");
for (String s : fset)
System.out.print(s);
System.out.println();
fset.add("bar");
fset.add("bar");
for (String s : fset)
System.out.print(s);
}
}
The key is in the add method. We change the counter for the given object (which changes the relation order), remove it from the backing set and put it back in.
This works the other way (count is increased when you use GET)
#SuppressWarnings("rawtypes")
final class Cache implements Comparable {
private String key;
private String value;
private int counter;
public String getValue() {
counter++;
return value;
}
private void setValue(String value) { this.value = value; }
public String getKey() { return key; }
private void setKey(String key) { this.key = key; }
public int getCounter() { return counter; }
public void setCounter(int counter) { this.counter = counter; }
public Cache(String key, String value) {
this.setKey(key);
this.setValue(value);
setCounter(0);
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Object arg0) {
if(!(arg0 instanceof Cache)) {
throw new ClassCastException();
}
return this.getCounter() - ((Cache) arg0).getCounter();
}
}
Related
I am trying to create a set of all letters in all the words in a dictionary.
I am using a TreeSet for that as I have to do lot's of compare operations.
public class main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Set<String> lines = new TreeSet<>();
lines.add("ba");
DictAwareSolver myGuesser = new DictAwareSolver(lines);
myGuesser.makeGuess();
}
}
This is my class which is operating on the set
package solver;
import sun.reflect.generics.tree.Tree;
import java.util.*;
import java.lang.System;
public class DictAwareSolver extends HangmanSolver
{
private Set<String> dict;
TreeSet<Node> myTree = new TreeSet<>();
//getters
public Set<String> getDict() {
return dict;
}
// methods
public DictAwareSolver(Set<String> dictionary) {
this.dict = dictionary;
// Implement me!
} // end of DictAwareSolver()
#Override
public void newGame(int[] wordLengths, int maxIncorrectGuesses)
{
// Implement me!
} // end of newGame()
#Override
public char makeGuess() {
Set<String> guessDict = getDict();
Iterator dictItr = guessDict.iterator();
while (dictItr.hasNext())
{
String word = (String) dictItr.next();
for (int i = 0; i<word.length(); i++)
{
Node temp = new Node(word.charAt(i));
myTree.add(temp);
}
}
Iterator treeItr = myTree.iterator();
while (treeItr.hasNext())
{
Node n = (Node) treeItr.next();
System.out.println(n.getLetter() + "-->"+n.getFrequency());
}
// TODO: This is a placeholder, replace with appropriate return value.
return '\0';
} // end of makeGuess()
#Override
public void guessFeedback(char c, Boolean bGuess, ArrayList< ArrayList<Integer> > lPositions)
{
// Implement me!
} // end of guessFeedback()
} // end of class DictAwareSolver
class Node implements Comparable<Node>{
private char letter;
private int frequency;
public Node(char letter)
{
this.letter = letter;
this.frequency = 1;
}
public void countIncrementer()
{
int newCount = getFrequency()+1;
setFrequency(newCount);
}
// getters
public char getLetter() {
return letter;
}
public int getFrequency() {
return frequency;
}
// setters
public void setFrequency(int frequency) {
this.frequency = frequency;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Node o) {
if (getLetter() == o.letter)
{
o.countIncrementer();
return 0;
}
else if (getLetter() > o.getLetter())
{
return 1;
}
else
{
return -1;
}
}
}
When I am running this whatever I am adding 1st is giving a count of 2. As in this case output is
a-->1
b-->2
but I am expecting
a-->1
b-->1
It will be really helpful if you can point out what is the problem. From what I can think of it should be something in my o.countIncrementer(); in my compareTo method. I am new to java.
The code is making the assumption that the TreeSet will only call the comparator against an equal element if one already exists in the set, and if it does such a comparison, it will only do it exactly once. However, this is not how TreeSet is implemented. Looking at the API documentation for TreeSet, there are no guarantees as to how the comparisons will occur or with what frequency. Since this is not a documented part of the API, the authors of TreeSet are free to implement this functionality in any reasonable manner they wish, so long as it meets the documented API. In fact, they are also allowed to change how it's implemented between versions (e.g. Java 6 & Java 7), or between different implementations (e.g. Oracle vs. IBM).
In short, if the documentation does not guarantee a behavior, your code should not rely on that behavior.
To go into the specific behavior you're seeing, the first element added to a TreeSet (in the versions of Java you're using) is compared against itself. While this is perhaps surprising, it is not disallowed by the API. There may or may not be a good reason for this (I believe the check was added in Java 7 to force a NullPointerException to be thrown when a null is added as the first element to a TreeSet that disallows nulls per this bug). However, in the end, the reason for the check shouldn't matter to users of the API, since it's not disallowed in the API.
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.printf("Java vendor & version: %s %s\n", System.getProperty("java.vendor"), Runtime.version());
TreeSet<Character> set = new TreeSet<>(new LoggingComparator<>());
set.add('a');
}
private static class LoggingComparator<T extends Comparable<? super T>> implements Comparator<T> {
#Override
public int compare(T o1, T o2) {
System.out.println(o1 + " <=> " + o2);
return o1.compareTo(o2);
}
}
Java vendor & version: Oracle Corporation 11.0.4+10-LTS
a <=> a
I'm working in a school project, where I want to implement the Iterator design pattern. I want to use generic arrays.
Container.java
public interface Container {
Iterator getIterator();
}
Iterator.java
public interface Iterator <T> {
boolean hasNext();
T next();
}
TransactionRepository.java
public class TransactionRepository<T> implements Container {
public TransactionRepository(){
userTransactions = new ArrayList<>();
}
public List<T> userTransactions;
#Override
public Iterator <T> getIterator() {
return new UserTransactions();
}
private T t;
public void add(T t) {
this.t = t;
}
public T get() {
return t;
}
private class UserTransactions implements Iterator <T> {
int index;
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return index < userTransactions.size();
}
#Override
public T next() {
if(this.hasNext())
return userTransactions.get(index);
return null;
}
}
}
In my other class, I add the elements to the list by first creating the TransactionRepository object like this: TransactionRepository<String> companyName = new TransactionRepository<String>();.
Then I add elements to the array with the add method companyName.add("CompanyName");. After that I want to print the array using Iterator, but It just won't print the elements. I have tried multiple variations, but none of them worked.
Iterator <String> stringIterator = companyName.getIterator();
while (stringIterator.hasNext()) {
System.out.println("Name : " + companyName.get());
}
With the current implementation List<T> userTransactions is never updated.
In this case userTransactions.size() in hasNext() method will always return 0 so the result of method will be false.
Moreover, you should use stringIterator.next() instead of companyName.get(). Since you implement your own iterator you don't want to use get() method at all.
There is also a need to update index counter variable after calling next() method.
#Override
public T next() {
if (this.hasNext())
return userTransactions.get(index++);
return null;
}
Change modifier on userTransactions to private final as it should be referenced just with iterator.
Code with proposed improvements:
public class TransactionRepository<T> implements Container {
public TransactionRepository() {
userTransactions = new ArrayList<>();
}
public List<T> userTransactions;
#Override
public Iterator<T> getIterator() {
return new UserTransactions();
}
public void add(T t) {
userTransactions.add(t);
}
private class UserTransactions implements Iterator<T> {
int index;
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return index < userTransactions.size();
}
#Override
public T next() {
if (this.hasNext()) {
return userTransactions.get(index++);
}
return null;
}
}
}
It seems that you are never adding elements to your userTransactions List on the add method
You add() method doesnt add anything to your list , it's just like a setter of the attribute t , you should use it to add elements to the list instead
public void add(T t) {
userTransactions.add(t);
}
There is also another problem , the index , your next() method gets the index element while you didnt initialise your index variable , i recommand you to do it in this way :
int index = 0 ;
...
public T next() {
if(this.hasNext())
int temp = index;
index++;
return userTransactions.get(temp);
return null;
}
I have a class that is mapped from a xml. To make it simple, let's imagine this class is something like:
class Employee implements EmployeeIF {
Map<AttributeIF,Object> attribute = new HashMap<>();
#Override
public Map<AttributeIF,Object> getAttributes() { return attribute; }
}
This is something I cannot change.
Now, the existing code is full of methods like:
public int getSalary(EmployeeIF employee) {
for(Entry<AttributeIF,Object> entry : employee.getAttributes()) {
if(entry.getKey().getName().equals("salary")) return (Integer)entry.getValue();
}
return 0;
}
public int getAddress(EmployeeIF employee) {
for(Entry<AttributeIF,Object> entry : employee.getAttributes()) {
if(entry.getKey().getName().equals("address")) return (String)entry.getValue();
}
return "";
}
... and so on. Surely you got the idea.
I need to include a new method to return a new attribute from the employee, but as I feel this is horrible to mantain, I refuse to just add a new method there.
I am thinking on using the action pattern to somehow avoiding at least repeating againg and again the for loop but I have to say that I cannot find a smart solution for this.
What would be your choices?
Thanks,
Dani.
P.D Yes I tried something like
private Object getAttribute(EmployeeIF employee, String attribute)
Here is a tiny example how you could get, based on a object as key that you don´t have, the value.
public class TestObject {
public String val;
public TestObject(String val) {
this.val = val;
}
public static TestObject createDummy(String val) {
return new TestObject(val);
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj) return true;
if (!(obj instanceof TestObject)) return false;
return ((TestObject)obj).val.equals(this.val);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
System.out.println("THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT");
return val.hashCode();
}
}
public class TestMap {
public Map<TestObject, String> map = new HashMap<>();
public String get(String keyVal) {
return map.get(TestObject.createDummy(keyVal));
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestMap map = new TestMap();
TestObject o1 = new TestObject("A");
map.map.put(o1,"B");
TestObject o2 = new TestObject("B");
map.map.put(o2,"C");
TestObject o3 = new TestObject("C");
map.map.put(o3,"D");
System.out.println(map.get("B"));
}
}
The Key to it, is to override equals and hashCode in your AttributeIF class. So in case you are passing a dummy object of they AttributeIF you do want to have your map needs to identify this dummy object to be equal with the instance of an theoretcly "equal" key object instance inside your Map.
I have a generic class with a generic list in it. I want to ensure that the generic list only contains unique classes.
What I have done so far is to compare the class names with reflection (getClass()). But I think that's not a clean solution. Are there any better practices to check?
public class MyGenericClass<T extends MyGenericClass.MyInterface> {
private List<T> members = new ArrayList<>(0);
public void add(T t) {
final boolean[] classInMembers = {false};
members.forEach(member -> {
if (member.getClass().getName().equals(t.getClass().getName())) {
classInMembers[0] = true;
}
});
if (!classInMembers[0]) {
members.add(t);
}
}
public interface MyInterface {
void doSomething(String text);
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyGenericClass<MyGenericClass.MyInterface> myGenericClass = new MyGenericClass<>();
myGenericClass.add(new Performer1());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer2());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3()); // should not be inserted!
}
private static class Performer1 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 1!";
}
}
private static class Performer2 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 2!";
}
}
private static class Performer3 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 3!";
}
}
}
You could subclass a java.util.Set interface implementation. It will likely be easiest to subclass java.util.AbstractSet.
By default 'Set' will compare objects by their .equals() method - In your case, this is not sufficient. You will need to override the contains method to ensure that only instances of a unique class are added.
In your overrideen contains, it's probably the same / easier to compare class instances rather than their stringified package name
I.e. use a.getClass() == b.getClass(), rather than a.getClass().getName()
Don't use a List, use a java.util.Set instead.
A collection that contains no duplicate elements. More formally, sets contain no pair of elements e1 and e2 such that e1.equals(e2), and at most one null element.
If the iteration order is important or if you want to use a custom Comparator, the TreeSet implementation can be used:
A NavigableSet implementation based on a TreeMap. The elements are ordered using their natural ordering, or by a Comparator provided at set creation time, depending on which constructor is used.
Example of a Set using a Comparator:
class MyComparator implements Comparator<Object> {
#Override
public int compare(Object e1, Object e2) {
if (e1.getClass() == e2.getClass())
return 0;
//if you wish to have some extra sort order
return e1.getClass().getName().compareTo(e2.getClass().getName());
}
}
. . .
Set mySet = new TreeSet<Object>(new MyComparator());
mySet.add(new Object());
mySet.add(new Object());//same class already in set
mySet.add("wtf");
//mySet.size() is now 2 - the second "new Object()" was not inserted due to the comparator check
Why so complicated?
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Class<?> helloClass = "Hello".getClass();
final Class<?> worldClass = "World".getClass();
final Class<?> intClass = Integer.class;
System.out.println(helloClass.equals(worldClass)); // -> true
System.out.println(helloClass.equals(intClass)); // -> false
}
}
You could maintain a roster of members in a Set.
public static class MyGenericClass<T extends MyGenericClass.MyInterface> {
private List<T> members = new ArrayList<>(0);
// Add this.
private Set<Class<?>> roster = new HashSet<>();
public void add(T t) {
if (!roster.contains(t.getClass())) {
members.add(t);
roster.add(t.getClass());
}
}
private void soundOff() {
for (T t : members) {
t.doSomething();
}
}
public interface MyInterface {
void doSomething();
}
}
private static class Performer implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
final int n;
public Performer(int n) {
this.n = n;
}
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Hi, I am a " + this.getClass().getSimpleName() + "(" + n + ")");
}
}
private static class Performer1 extends Performer {
public Performer1(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
private static class Performer2 extends Performer {
public Performer2(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
private static class Performer3 extends Performer {
public Performer3(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
public void test() {
MyGenericClass<MyGenericClass.MyInterface> myGenericClass = new MyGenericClass<>();
myGenericClass.add(new Performer1(1));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer2(2));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3(3));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3(4)); // should not be inserted!
myGenericClass.soundOff();
}
You could implement a Wrapper which provides the necessary comparison and add the wrapped instance to the set. This way you don't have to override equals and hashcode in your concrete Performer classes and you don't have to subclass a concrete Set implementation (which you are coupled to. When you subclass a HashSet, you have to use that concrete class. But what if you want to use a LinkedHashSet at some point? You have to override LinkedHashSet as well) , which may be fragile since you have to make sure that the overridden method is consistent with the rest of the class.
class MyGenericClass<T extends MyInterface> {
private Set<ClassCompareWrapper<T>> members = new HashSet<>();
public void add(T t) {
members.add(new ClassCompareWrapper<T>(t));
}
}
class ClassCompareWrapper<T> {
T t;
public ClassCompareWrapper(T t) {
this.t = t;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o)
return true;
if (!(o instanceof ClassCompareWrapper))
return false;
ClassCompareWrapper<?> that = (ClassCompareWrapper<?>) o;
return Objects.equals(t.getClass(), that.t.getClass());
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(t.getClass());
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Wrapper{" +
"t=" + t +
'}';
}
}
Here are a few other ideas.
Using streams:
public void add(T t) {
if (!members.stream().anyMatch(m -> m.getClass() == t.getClass())) {
members.add(t);
}
}
Using AbstractSet and HashMap:
class ClassSet<E> extends AbstractSet<E> {
private final Map<Class<?>, E> map = new HashMap<>();
#Override
public boolean add(E e) {
// this can be
// return map.putIfAbsent(e.getClass(), e) != null;
// in Java 8
Class<?> clazz = e.getClass();
if (map.containsKey(clazz)) {
return false;
} else {
map.put(clazz, e);
return true;
}
}
#Override
public boolean remove(Object o) {
return map.remove(o.getClass()) != null;
}
#Override
public boolean contains(Object o) {
return map.containsKey(o.getClass());
}
#Override
public int size() {
return map.size();
}
#Override
public Iterator<E> iterator() {
return map.values().iterator();
}
}
A HashMap could also be used without wrapping it in a Set. The Set interface is defined around equals and hashCode, so any implementation which deviates from this is technically non-contractual. Additionally, you might want to use LinkedHashMap if the values are iterated often.
I've created a hashmap with .class objects for keys.
Hashmap<Class<? extends MyObject>, Object> mapping = new Hashmap<Class<? extends MyObject>, Object>();
This is all well and fine, but I'm getting strange behaviour that I can only attribute to strangeness with the hash function. Randomly during runtime, iterating through the hashmap will not hit every value; it will miss one or two. I think this may be due to the .class object not being final, and therefore it changes causing it to map to a different hash value. With a different hash value, the hashmap wouldn't be able to correctly correlate the key with the value, thus making it appear to have lost the value.
Am I correct that this is what is going on? How can I work around this? Is there a better way to accomplish this form of data structure?
Edit: I really thought I was onto something with the hash function thing, but I'll post my real code to try and figure this out. It may be a problem with my implementation of a multimap. I've been using it for quite some time and haven't noticed any issues until recently.
/**
* My own implementation of a map that maps to a List. If the key is not present, then
* the map adds a List with a single entry. Every subsequent addition to the key
* is appended to the List.
* #author
*
* #param <T> Key
* #param <K> Value
*/
public class MultiMap<T, K> implements Map<T, List<K>>, Serializable, Iterable<K> {
/**
*
*/
private static final long serialVersionUID = 5789101682525659411L;
protected HashMap<T, List<K>> set = new HashMap<T, List<K>>();
#Override
public void clear() {
set = new HashMap<T, List<K>>();
}
#Override
public boolean containsKey(Object arg0) {
return set.containsKey(arg0);
}
#Override
public boolean containsValue(Object arg0) {
boolean output = false;
for(Iterator<List<K>> iter = set.values().iterator();iter.hasNext();) {
List<K> searchColl = iter.next();
for(Iterator<K> iter2 = searchColl.iterator(); iter2.hasNext();) {
K value = iter2.next();
if(value == arg0) {
output = true;
break;
}
}
}
return output;
}
#Override
public Set<Entry<T, List<K>>> entrySet() {
Set<Entry<T, List<K>>> output = new HashSet<Entry<T,List<K>>>();
for(Iterator<T> iter1 = set.keySet().iterator(); iter1.hasNext();) {
T key = iter1.next();
for(Iterator<K> iter2 = set.get(key).iterator(); iter2.hasNext();) {
K value = iter2.next();
List<K> input = new ArrayList<K>();
input.add(value);
output.add(new AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<T,List<K>>(key, input));
}
}
return output;
}
#Override
public boolean isEmpty() {
return set.isEmpty();
}
#Override
public Set<T> keySet() {
return set.keySet();
}
#Override
public int size() {
return set.size();
}
#Override
public Collection<List<K>> values() {
Collection<List<K>> values = new ArrayList<List<K>>();
for(Iterator<T> iter1 = set.keySet().iterator(); iter1.hasNext();) {
T key = iter1.next();
values.add(set.get(key));
}
return values;
}
#Override
public List<K> get(Object key) {
return set.get(key);
}
#Override
public List<K> put(T key, List<K> value) {
return set.put(key, value);
}
public void putValue(T key, K value) {
if(set.containsKey(key)) {
set.get(key).add(value);
}
else {
List<K> setval = new ArrayList<K>();
setval.add(value);
set.put(key, setval);
}
}
#Override
public List<K> remove(Object key) {
return set.remove(key);
}
public K removeValue(Object value) {
K valueRemoved = null;
for(T key:this.keySet()) {
for(K val:this.get(key)) {
if(val.equals(value)) {
List<K> temp = this.get(key);
temp.remove(value);
valueRemoved = val;
this.put(key, temp);
}
}
}
return valueRemoved;
}
#Override
public void putAll(Map<? extends T, ? extends List<K>> m) {
for(Iterator<? extends T> iter = m.keySet().iterator(); iter.hasNext();) {
T key = iter.next();
set.put(key, m.get(key));
}
}
#Override
public Iterator<K> iterator() {
return new MultiMapIterator<K>(this);
}
}
Perhaps there is an issue with my iterator? I'll post that code as well.
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.NoSuchElementException;
public class MultiMapIterator<T> implements Iterator<T> {
private MultiMap <?, T> map;
private Iterator<List<T>> HashIter;
private Iterator<T> govIter;
private T value;
public MultiMapIterator(MultiMap<?, T> map) {
this.map = map;
HashIter = map.values().iterator();
if(HashIter.hasNext()) {
govIter = HashIter.next().iterator();
}
if(govIter.hasNext()) {
value = govIter.next();
}
}
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
if (govIter.hasNext()) {
return true;
}
else if(HashIter.hasNext()) {
govIter = HashIter.next().iterator();
return this.hasNext();
}
else {
return false;
}
}
#Override
public T next() {
if(!this.hasNext()) {
throw new NoSuchElementException();
}
else {
value = govIter.next();
return value;
}
}
#Override
public void remove() {
map.remove(value);
}
}
Sorry for the long tracts of code. Thank you for spending time helping me with this.
You pull the a value out of govIter in the constructor, but never return it.
Your iterator remove method is completely wrong. You are iterating values, but calling the map.remove which removes by key. you simply want to call govIter.remove() (unless you need to avoid empty lists, in which case it's more complicated).
Your hasNext() method could also have problems depending on whether or not you allow empty Lists values in your multimap.