We Keep Coding

local variable is not known within for loop in lambda java 8 [duplicate]

Modifying a local variable in forEach gives a compile error:
Normal
int ordinal = 0;
for (Example s : list) {
s.setOrdinal(ordinal);
ordinal++;
}
With Lambda
int ordinal = 0;
list.forEach(s -> {
s.setOrdinal(ordinal);
ordinal++;
});
Any idea how to resolve this?

Use a wrapper
Any kind of wrapper is good.
With Java 10+, use this construct as it's very easy to setup:
var wrapper = new Object(){ int ordinal = 0; };
list.forEach(s -> {
s.setOrdinal(wrapper.ordinal++);
});
With Java 8+, use either an AtomicInteger:
AtomicInteger ordinal = new AtomicInteger(0);
list.forEach(s -> {
s.setOrdinal(ordinal.getAndIncrement());
});
... or an array:
int[] ordinal = { 0 };
list.forEach(s -> {
s.setOrdinal(ordinal[0]++);
});
Note: be very careful if you use a parallel stream. You might not end up with the expected result. Other solutions like Stuart's might be more adapted for those cases.
For types other than int
Of course, this is still valid for types other than int.
For instance, with Java 10+:
var wrapper = new Object(){ String value = ""; };
list.forEach(s->{
wrapper.value += "blah";
});
Or if you're stuck with Java 8 or 9, use the same kind of construct as we did above, but with an AtomicReference...
AtomicReference<String> value = new AtomicReference<>("");
list.forEach(s -> {
value.set(value.get() + s);
});
... or an array:
String[] value = { "" };
list.forEach(s-> {
value[0] += s;
});

This is fairly close to an XY problem. That is, the question being asked is essentially how to mutate a captured local variable from a lambda. But the actual task at hand is how to number the elements of a list.
In my experience, upward of 80% of the time there is a question of how to mutate a captured local from within a lambda, there's a better way to proceed. Usually this involves reduction, but in this case the technique of running a stream over the list indexes applies well:
IntStream.range(0, list.size())
.forEach(i -> list.get(i).setOrdinal(i));

If you only need to pass the value from the outside into the lambda, and not get it out, you can do it with a regular anonymous class instead of a lambda:
list.forEach(new Consumer<Example>() {
int ordinal = 0;
public void accept(Example s) {
s.setOrdinal(ordinal);
ordinal++;
}
});

As the used variables from outside the lamda have to be (implicitly) final, you have to use something like AtomicInteger or write your own data structure.
See
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/lambdaexpressions.html#accessing-local-variables.

An alternative to AtomicInteger is to use an array (or any other object able to store a value):
final int ordinal[] = new int[] { 0 };
list.forEach ( s -> s.setOrdinal ( ordinal[ 0 ]++ ) );
But see the Stuart's answer: there might be a better way to deal with your case.

Yes, you can modify local variables from inside lambdas (in the way shown by the other answers), but you should not do it. Lambdas have been made for functional style of programming and this means: No side effects. What you want to do is considered bad style. It is also dangerous in case of parallel streams.
You should either find a solution without side effects or use a traditional for loop.

If you are on Java 10, you can use var for that:
var ordinal = new Object() { int value; };
list.forEach(s -> {
s.setOrdinal(ordinal.value);
ordinal.value++;
});

You can wrap it up to workaround the compiler but please remember that side effects in lambdas are discouraged.
To quote the javadoc
Side-effects in behavioral parameters to stream operations are, in general, discouraged, as they can often lead to unwitting violations of the statelessness requirement
A small number of stream operations, such as forEach() and peek(), can operate only via side-effects; these should be used with care

I had a slightly different problem. Instead of incrementing a local variable in the forEach, I needed to assign an object to the local variable.
I solved this by defining a private inner domain class that wraps both the list I want to iterate over (countryList) and the output I hope to get from that list (foundCountry). Then using Java 8 "forEach", I iterate over the list field, and when the object I want is found, I assign that object to the output field. So this assigns a value to a field of the local variable, not changing the local variable itself. I believe that since the local variable itself is not changed, the compiler doesn't complain. I can then use the value that I captured in the output field, outside of the list.
Domain Object:
public class Country {
private int id;
private String countryName;
public Country(int id, String countryName){
this.id = id;
this.countryName = countryName;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getCountryName() {
return countryName;
}
public void setCountryName(String countryName) {
this.countryName = countryName;
}
}
Wrapper object:
private class CountryFound{
private final List<Country> countryList;
private Country foundCountry;
public CountryFound(List<Country> countryList, Country foundCountry){
this.countryList = countryList;
this.foundCountry = foundCountry;
}
public List<Country> getCountryList() {
return countryList;
}
public void setCountryList(List<Country> countryList) {
this.countryList = countryList;
}
public Country getFoundCountry() {
return foundCountry;
}
public void setFoundCountry(Country foundCountry) {
this.foundCountry = foundCountry;
}
}
Iterate operation:
int id = 5;
CountryFound countryFound = new CountryFound(countryList, null);
countryFound.getCountryList().forEach(c -> {
if(c.getId() == id){
countryFound.setFoundCountry(c);
}
});
System.out.println("Country found: " + countryFound.getFoundCountry().getCountryName());
You could remove the wrapper class method "setCountryList()" and make the field "countryList" final, but I did not get compilation errors leaving these details as-is.

To have a more general solution, you can write a generic Wrapper class:
public static class Wrapper<T> {
public T obj;
public Wrapper(T obj) { this.obj = obj; }
}
...
Wrapper<Integer> w = new Wrapper<>(0);
this.forEach(s -> {
s.setOrdinal(w.obj);
w.obj++;
});
(this is a variant of the solution given by Almir Campos).
In the specific case this is not a good solution, as Integer is worse than int for your purpose, anyway this solution is more general I think.

Good way of calling Functions/class in big if/else constructs

I've seen many code-parts in mostly old(java mostly) projects that look like
if(type == typeOne){
callFunctionOne();
}else if (type == typeTwo){
callFunctionTwo();
}else if (type == typeThree){
callFunctionThree();
}//i've seen over ~800 lines like this!
where "type" could be an enum or really anything and the whole thing could be written in switch/case style too.
My question is: is there a "better"(more stylish/shorter/more readable) way to achieve this?
I've seen constructs in PHP like:
//where $type = "one","two" etc.
$functionName = 'callFunction' . $type;
new $functionName();
But im not sure if this is realy the "better" way and if its even possible in other Languages.

The more interesting question imo is what exactly you want to achieve by this?
Java is an object-oriented language. Therefore i would solve this by one subclass per type:
abstract class Type{
abstract void method();
}
class Type1 extends Type{
void method(){
//do sth. specific for this type
}
}
If the methods are actually all in the same class you could still call them out of these classes by simply passing yourself (i see that this could get ugly).
class RandomClass(){
void method1(){
//do sth for type1
}
void method2(){
//do sth for type2
}
}
abstract class Type{
RandomClass randomClass;
Type(RandomClass randomClass){
this.randomClass = randomClass;
}
abstract void method();
}
class Type1 extends Type{
void method(){
randomClass.method1();
}
}
class Type2 extends Type{
void method(){
randomClass.method2();
}
}
Otherwise you could use reflection, like suggested by Sohaib (example taken from his suggested link):
Yyyy.class.getMethod("methodName").invoke(someArgs)
But using Reflection for somehting like this seems very unhandy as it is inperformant and a nice trap for later maintenance (just imagine someone starts renaming the methods).
So to answer the question itself (at least how i understand it):
Dynamically calling methods e.g. by determining their name dynamically at runtime, is something you only do in scripting languages.
The object-oriented approach might come with overhead, but at the end is the better style for this kind of language.
If both solutions do not work for you, a switch statement or if-else cascade is your best alternative.

As noted in a comment, there are ways to use java's reflection capabilities. See this question for how to do that. That said, reflection is pretty bad style in java and should only be used if you really have no other option. Java's really big on OO-style programming and static type checking and using reflection is skimping on both of those focuses. In doing so you'll likely make your code just as complicated and way harder to debug.
Without reflection, there's not much better you can do if the code block in question happens exactly once. You'd have to implement the logic somewhere, probably involving the same if-else/switch block. However, if you find yourself copy-pasting that same if-elseif-elseif-elseif.... block in multiple places, you can do a bit better.
If type is an enum, you can move the logic to the enum itself, which is really nice from an OO standpoint. Consider the following:
public enum Direction {
NORTH,
SOUTH,
EAST,
WEST
}
public class Foo {
public void bar(Direction d) {
//At some point we want some logic to depend on the vector dx,dy form of d
int dx = 0;
int dy = 0;
switch(d) {
case NORTH:
dy = -1;
break;
case SOUTH:
dy = 1;
break;
case EAST:
dx = 1;
break;
case WEST:
dx = -1;
break;
}
//Use the values in dx, dy
}
}
It's clearly a bad idea to copy-paste this block around your project. If you ever add a new direction, you'd have to return to every such block to add the correct addition. From an OO standpoint, the dx, dy fields are truly part of the enum value, and should be a part of it to begin with. Thus we can change the above to the following:
public enum Direction {
NORTH,
SOUTH,
EAST,
WEST;
public int getDX() {
switch(this) {
case WEST: return -1;
case EAST: return 1;
default: return 0;
}
}
public int getDY() {
switch(this) {
case NORTH: return -1;
case SOUTH: return 1;
default: return 0;
}
}
}
Or, (IMO) even better, represent them as a field
public enum Direction {
NORTH(0,-1),
SOUTH(0,1),
EAST(1,0),
WEST(-1,0);
private int dx;
private int dy;
private Direction(int dx, int dy) {
this.dx = dx;
this.dy = dy;
}
public int getDX() {
return dx;
}
public int getDY() {
return dy;
}
}
From there we can simply use these methods directly in Foo.bar() and don't need any logic:
public class Foo {
public void bar(Direction d) {
//can directly use d.getDX() and d.getDY()
}
}
Your question about function calling is the same, if one level removed. We can either add the switch straight to the enum:
public enum Type {
VALUE_ONE, VALUE_TWO, ...
public void callFunc() {
switch(this) {
case VALUE_ONE:
callFunctionOne();
return;
case VALUE_TWO:
callFunctionTwo();
return;
//....
}
}
}
And then just use it by directly referencing that function:
Type t = //....
t.callFunc();
You could even use some java-8 stuff to represent the function-to-call as a field
#FunctionalInterface
public interface Unit {
public void apply();
}
public enum Type {
VALUE_ONE(Foo::baz),
VALUE_TWO(Foo::baz2),
//...
private Unit funcToCall;
private Type(Unit u) {
this.funcToCall = u;
}
public void callFunc() {
funcToCall.apply();
}
}
If type is not an enum, you can use some (but not all) of the above options. You can still lump your switch logic into a helper method/class and pass control over to it instead of copy/pasting. The more that type is supposed to represent something, and the more you find yourself wanting to switch over it, the more likely an enum is the correct choice.

Populating a Boolean Array in Java

As a fairly green Java coder I've set myself the hefty challenge of trying to write a simple text adventure. Unsurprisingly, I've encountered difficulties already!
I'm trying to give my Location class a property to store which exits it contains. I've used a boolean array for this, to essentially hold true/false values representing each exit. I'm not entirely convinced that
a) this is the most efficient way to do this and
b) that I'm using the right code to populate the array.
I would appreciate any and all feedback, even if it is for a complete code over-haul!
At present, when instantiating a Location I generate a String which I send through to the setExits method:
String e = "N S U";
secretRoom.setExits(e);
In the Location class, setExits looks like this:
public void setExits(String e) {
if (e.contains("N"))
bexits[0] = true;
else if (e.contains("W"))
bexits[1] = true;
else if (e.contains("S"))
bexits[2] = true;
else if (e.contains("E"))
bexits[3] = true;
else if (e.contains("U"))
bexits[4] = true;
else if (e.contains("D"))
bexits[5] = true;
}
I'll be honest, I think this looks particularly clunky, but I couldn't think of another way to do it. I'm also not entirely sure now how to write the getExits method...
Any help would be welcome!

The most efficient and expressive way is the following:
Use enums as Exits and use an EnumSet to store them. EnumSet is an efficient Set implementation that uses a bit field to represent the enum constants.
Here is how you can do it:
public enum Exit { North, West, South, East, Up, Down; }
EnumSet<Exit> set = EnumSet.noneOf(Exit.class); // An empty set.
// Now you can simply add or remove exits, everything will be stored compactly
set.add(Exit.North); // Add exit
set.contains(Exit.West); // Test if an exit is present
set.remove(Exit.South); //Remove an exit
Enum set will store all exits in a single long internally, so your code is expressive, fast, and saves a lot of memory.

Is there any reason why you are doing this with Strings and aren't passing in booleans, i.e.
public void setExits(boolean N, boolean E, boolean S, boolean W, boolean U, boolean D)
Or having setters?
public void setNorthOpen(boolean open)
{
bexits[4] = open;
}
Secondly, why are you storing the exits as an array of booleans, it's a small finite set, why not just
boolean N,S,E,W,U,D;
As then you don't need to keep track of which number in the array each direction is.
Also
This is a correct answer (if not completely optimal like that of #gexicide) but I fully encourage anyone to look at the other answers here for an interesting look at how things can be done in Java in different ways.
For future reference
Code which works belongs on Code Review, not Stack Overflow. Although as #kajacx pointed out, this code shouldn't -in fact- work.

OK, first of all, your setExits() method will not work as intended, chained if-elseif will maximally execute 1 branch of code, for example:
if (e.contains("N"))
bexits[0] = true;
else if (e.contains("W"))
bexits[1] = true;
Even if e contains both N and W, only bexits[0] will be set. Also this method will only add exits (for example calling setExits("") will not delete any existing exits.
I would change that method to:
bexits[0] = e.contains("N");
bexits[1] = e.contains("W");
...
Also, i definetly wouldn't remember that north is on index 0, west in on 1, ... so a common practice is to name your indexes using final static constants:
public static final int NORTH = 0;
public static final int WEST = 1;
...
Then you can write in your setExits method:
bexits[NORTH] = e.contains("N");
bexits[WEST] = e.contains("W");
...
(much more readible)
Finally, if you want your code even more well-arranged, you can make a Exits class representing avaliable exits, and backed by boolean array. Then on place where you create your String, you could create this class instead and save yourself work with generating and then parsing a string.
EDIT:
as #gexicide answers, there is a really handy class EnumSet which would be probably better for representing the exits than bollean array.

The EnumSet in the other answer is the best way to do this, I just wanted to add one more thing though for the future when you start looking not just at whether you can move but where you are moving to.
As well as EnumSet you also have EnumMap.
If you define a Room class/interface then inside the Room class you can have
Map<Direction, Room> exits = new EnumMap<>(Direction.class);
You can now add your links into the map as follows:
exits.put(Direction.NORTH, theRoomNorthOfMe);
Then your code to move between rooms can be very general purpose:
Room destination=currentRoom.getExit(directionMoved);
if (destination == null) {
// Cannot move that way
} else {
// Handle move to destination
}

I would create an Exit enum and on the location class just set a list of Exit objects.
so it would be something like:
public enum Exit { N, S, E, W, U, D }
List<Exit> exits = parseExits(String exitString);
location.setExits(exits);

Given what your code looks like, this is the most readable implementation I could come up with:
public class Exits {
private static final char[] DIRECTIONS = "NSEWUD".toCharArray();
public static void main(String... args) {
String input = "N S E";
boolean[] exits = new boolean[DIRECTIONS.length];
for(int i = 0; i< exits.length; i++) {
if (input.indexOf(DIRECTIONS[i]) >= 0) {
exits[i] = true;
}
}
}
}
That being said, there's a number of cleaner solutions possible. Personally I would go with enums and an EnumSet.
By the way, your original code is incorrect, as it will set as most one value in the array to true.

If you're defining exits as a string, you should use it. I would do it like:
public class LocationWithExits {
public static final String NORTH_EXIT="[N]";
public static final String SOUTH_EXIT="[S]";
public static final String EAST_EXIT="[E]";
public static final String WEST_EXIT="[W]";
private final String exitLocations;
public LocationWithExits(String exitLocations) {
this.exitLocations = exitLocations;
}
public boolean hasNorthExit(){
return exitLocations.contains(NORTH_EXIT);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
LocationWithExits testLocation=new LocationWithExits(NORTH_EXIT+SOUTH_EXIT);
System.out.println("Has exit on north?: "+testLocation.hasNorthExit());
}
}
using array of booleans might cause a lot of problems if you forget what exactly means bexits[0]. Os it for north or south? etc.
or you can just use enums and list of exits available . Then in methid test if list contain a certain enum value

Personally, I think you can hack it around a bit using an enum and turn the following:
public void setExits(String e) {
if (e.contains("N"))
bexits[0] = true;
else if (e.contains("W"))
bexits[1] = true;
else if (e.contains("S"))
bexits[2] = true;
else if (e.contains("E"))
bexits[3] = true;
else if (e.contains("U"))
bexits[4] = true;
else if (e.contains("D"))
bexits[5] = true;
}
into
public enum Directions
{
NORTH("N"),
WEST("W"),
SOUTH("S"),
EAST("E"),
UP("U"),
DOWN("D");
private String identifier;
private Directions(String identifier)
{
this.identifier = identifier;
}
public String getIdentifier()
{
return identifier;
}
}
and then do:
public void setExits(String e)
{
String[] exits = e.split(" ");
for(String exit : exits)
{
for(Directions direction : Directions.values())
{
if(direction.getIdentifier().equals(exit))
{
bexits[direction.ordinal()] = true;
break;
}
}
}
}
Although after having written it down, I can't really tell you if it's that much better. It's easier to add new directions, that's for sure.

All the approaches listed in the answeres are good. But I think the approach you need to take depends on the way you are going to use the exit field. For example if you are going to handle exit as strings then Ross Drews approach would require a lot of if-else conditions and variables.
String exit = "N E";
String[] exits = exit.split(" ");
boolean N = false, E = false, S = false, W = false, U = false, D = false;
for(String e : exits){
if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("N")){
N = true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("E")){
E = true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("W")){
W= true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("U")){
U = true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("D")){
D = true;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("S")){
S = true;
}
}
setExits(N, E, S, W, U, D);
Also if you have an exit and you want to check whether a location has that particular exit then again you will have to do the same
public boolean hasExit(String exit){
if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("N")){
return this.N; // Or the corresponding getter method
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("E")){
return this.E;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("W")){
return this.W;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("U")){
return this.U;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("D")){
return this.D;
} else if(e.equalsIgnoreCase("S")){
return this.S;
}
}
So if you are going to manipulate it as a string, in my opinion the best approach would be to go for list and enum. By this way you could do methods like hasExit, hasAnyExit, hasAllExits, hasNorthExit, hasSouthExit, getAvailableExits etc etc.. very easily. And considering the number of exits (6) using a list (or set) wont be an overhead. For example
Enum
public enum EXIT {
EAST("E"),
WEST("W"),
NORTH("N"),
SOUTH("S"),
UP("U"),
DOWN("D");
private String exitCode;
private EXIT(String exitCode) {
this.exitCode = exitCode;
}
public String getExitCode() {
return exitCode;
}
public static EXIT fromValue(String exitCode) {
for (EXIT exit : values()) {
if (exit.exitCode.equalsIgnoreCase(exitCode)) {
return exit;
}
}
return null;
}
public static EXIT fromValue(char exitCode) {
for (EXIT exit : values()) {
if (exit.exitCode.equalsIgnoreCase(String.valueOf(exitCode))) {
return exit;
}
}
return null;
}
}
Location.java
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Location {
private List<EXIT> exits;
public Location(){
exits = new ArrayList<EXIT>();
}
public void setExits(String exits) {
for(char exitCode : exits.toCharArray()){
EXIT exit = EXIT.fromValue(exitCode);
if(exit != null){
this.exits.add(exit);
}
}
}
public boolean hasExit(String exitCode){
return exits.contains(EXIT.fromValue(exitCode));
}
public boolean hasAnyExit(String exits){
for(char exitCode : exits.toCharArray()){
if(this.exits.contains(EXIT.fromValue(exitCode))){
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
public boolean hasAllExit(String exits){
for(char exitCode : exits.toCharArray()){
EXIT exit = EXIT.fromValue(exitCode);
if(exit != null && !this.exits.contains(exit)){
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public boolean hasExit(char exitCode){
return exits.contains(EXIT.fromValue(exitCode));
}
public boolean hasNorthExit(){
return exits.contains(EXIT.NORTH);
}
public boolean hasSouthExit(){
return exits.contains(EXIT.SOUTH);
}
public List<EXIT> getExits() {
return exits;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
String exits = "N E W";
Location location = new Location();
location.setExits(exits);
System.out.println(location.getExits());
System.out.println(location.hasExit('W'));
System.out.println(location.hasAllExit("N W"));
System.out.println(location.hasAnyExit("U D"));
System.out.println(location.hasNorthExit());
}
}

Why not this if you want a shorter code:
String symbols = "NWSEUD";
public void setExits(String e) {
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
bexits[i] = e.contains(symbols.charAt(i));
}
}

If you want a generic solution you can use a map, which maps from a key (in your case W, S, E.. ) to a corresponding value (in your case a boolean).
When you do a set, you update the value the key is associated with. When you do a get, you can take an argument key and simply retrieve the value of the key. This functionality does already exist in map, called put and get.

I really like the idea of assigning the exits from a String, because it makes for brief and readable code. Once that's done, I don't see why you would want to create a boolean array. If you have a String, just use it, although you might want to add some validation to prevent accidental assignment of strings containing unwanted characters:
private String exits;
public void setExits(String e) {
if (!e.matches("[NSEWUD ]*")) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
exits = e;
}
The only other thing I would add is a method canExit that you can call with a direction parameter; e.g., if (location.canExit('N')) ...:
public boolean canExit(char direction) {
return exits.indexOf(direction) >= 0;
}
I like enums, but using them here seems like over-engineering to me, which will rapidly become annoying.
**Edit**: Actually, don't do this. It answers the wrong question, and it does something which doesn't need to be done. I just noticed #TimB's answer of using a map (an EnumMap) to associate directions with rooms. It makes sense.
I still feel that if you only need to track exit existence, a String is simple and effective, and anything else is over-complicating it. However, only knowing which exits are available isn't useful. You will want to go through those exits, and unless your game has a very plain layout it won't be doable for the code to infer the correct room for each direction, so you'll need to explicitly associate each direction with another room. So there seems to be no actual use for any method "setExits" which accepts a list of directions (regardless of how it's implemented internally).

public void setExits(String e)
{
String directions="NwSEUD";
for(int i=0;i<directions.length();i++)
{
if(e.contains(""+directions.charAt(i)))
{
bexits[i]=true;
break;
}
}
}
the iterative way of doing the same thing..

Long chains of else if statements should be replaced with switch statements.
Enums are the most expressive way to store such values as long as the efficiency is not a concern. Keep in mind that enum is a class, so creation of a new enum is associated with corresponding overhead.

Enumeration help/advice - java

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.

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).