I'm trying to create a simple method which I have below:
public void analyzeWithAnalytics(String data) {
for (int i = 0; i < VALUE; i++) {
if (data.equals("action1")) {
// call a method on a value
}
if (data.equals("action2")) {
// call a different method on a value
}
}
This is only a small snippet (I took a lot out of my code), but essentially I want to be able to call a specific method without testing multiple lines in my for loop for which method to call.
Is there a way for me to decide what value to call by declaring a variable at the very beginning, instead of doing so many 'if statement' tests?
OK, I have an ArrayList inside my class:
private List<Value> values;
The value object has 2 fields time and speed.
Depending on the string I pass (time or speed), I want to be able to call the specific method for that field without doing multiple string comparisons on what method I passed.
For example, I want to be able to call getSpeed() or getTime() without doing a string comparison each time I want to call it.
I just want to test it once.
Another one:
enum Action {
SPEED {
public void doSomething() {
// code
}
},
TIME {
public void doSomething() {
// code
}
};
public abstract void doSomething();
}
public void analyzeWithAnalytics(Action data) {
for (int i = 0; i < VALUE; i++) {
data.doSomething();
}
}
You can have a Map which maps the names (action1, action2, ...) to classes which common parent and one method. And make call as following:
map.getClass("action1").executeMethod();
Map<String, MethodClass> theMap = new Map<>();
interface MethodClass {
executeMethod();
}
and children:
class MethodClass1 implements MethodClass{...}
class MethodClass2 implements MethodClass{...}
Your goal is not really clear from your question. Do you want to:
avoid typing the many cases?
gain code readability?
improve performance?
In case you're after performance, don't optimize prematurely! Meaning, don't assume that this will be important for performance without checking that out first (preferably by profiling). Instead focus on readability and perhaps laziness. ;)
Anyway, you can avoid the many tests inside by simply checking data outside of the loop. But than you'd have to copy/paste the loop code several times. Doesn't make the method more beautiful...
I would also recommend using case instead of if. It improves readability a lot and also gives you a little performance. Especially since your original code didn't use if - elseif - ... which means all conditions are checked even after the first was true.
Do I get this right? data will not be changed in the loop? Then do this:
public void analyzeWithAnalytics(String data) {
if (data.equals("action1")) {
for (int i = 0; i < VALUE; i++) {
// call a method on a value
}
} else if (data.equals("action2")) {
for (int i = 0; i < VALUE; i++) {
// call a different method on a value
}
}
}
You can also switch on strings (Java 7) if you don't like ìf...
You could try something like this, it would reduce the amount of typing for sure:
public void analyzeWithAnalytics(String data) {
for (int i = 0; i < VALUE; i++) {
switch(data) {
case "action1": doSomething(); break;
case "action2": doSomething(); break;
}
}
}
Related
I'm having a bit of trouble in my head trying to solve this:
I'm working on a "rankList", an arrayList made of "Score". Score it's the object that has the following atributes: name,wins,loses,draws. My class Ranking has an ArrayList of Score objects. To create a new Score object I just use the name (and set the rest to 0 since it's new). However I'm trying to check if the player's name it's already in rankList I don't have to create new but sum a win or lose or draw.
I have been reading arround that I have to override equals then others say I have to override contains... It's getting a big mess in my head. My fastest solution would be to write an "for" that goes arround the arrayList and use the getName().equals("name"); however this is getting too messi in my code. I have checkPlayer (if the palyer is in the list):
public boolean checkPlayer(String playerName) {
for (int i = 0; i < this.rankList.size(); i++) {
if (this.rankList.get(i).getName().equals(playerName)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
then if I want to incrase the wins i have this :
public void incraseWins(String playerName) {
if (checkPlayer(playerName)) {
for (int i = 0; i < this.rankList.size(); i++) {
if (this.rankList.get(i).getName().equals(playerName)) {
this.rankList.get(i).setWins(this.rankList.get(i).getWins() + 1);
break;
}
}
} else {
createPlayer(playerName);
//more for to get to the player i'm looking for...
for (int i = 0; i < this.rankList.size(); i++) {
if (this.rankList.get(i).getName().equals(playerName)) {
this.rankList.get(i).setWins(this.rankList.get(i).getWins() + 1);
break;
}
}
}
So i guess there is a better way to do this... :/
ArrayList is not the right data structure here. To check if an element exists in the array you are searching the entire arraylist. Which means it's O(N).
To keep an array list is sorted order and do a binary search on it would definitely be faster as suggested in the comments. But that wouldn't solve all your problems either because insert into the middle would be slow. Please see this Q&A: When to use LinkedList over ArrayList?
One suggestion is to use a Map. You would then be storing player name, player object pairs. This would give you very quick look ups. Worst case is O(log N) i believe.
It's also worth mentioning that you would probably need to make a permanent record of these scores eventually. If so an indexed RDBMS would give you much better performance and make your code a lot simpler.
Try using a hashtable with a key, it would be much more efficient!
e..Why not using map<>.
a binary search is good idea if you must use List,code like this
List<Method> a= new ArrayList<>();
//some method data add...
int index = Collections.binarySearch(a, m);
Method f = a.get(index);
and class method is impl of Comparable,then override compareTo() method
public class Method implements Comparable<Method>{
........
#Override
public int compareTo(Method o) {
return this.methodName.compareTo(o.getMethodName());
}
if you don't want use binsearch,CollectionUtils in commons can help you
CollectionUtils.find(a, new Predicate() {
#Override
public boolean evaluate(Object object) {
return ((Method)object).getMethodName().equals("aaa");
}
});
in fact CollectionUtils.find is also a 'for'
for (Iterator iter = collection.iterator(); iter.hasNext();) {
Object item = iter.next();
if (predicate.evaluate(item)) {
return item;
}
}
I am making a little program in Java that makes a program that acts like a "library", only with video games. In the program you shoud be able to add, delete and edit games; you shoud also be able to list off all the games in the "library".
To be able to delete and edit games, I have decided to implement a function that will return a list of all the elements in the list that matches the query String that I give it, and then the user will have to choose between a numbered list of all the returned results.
This is my code:
public static ArrayList<GameStorage> findElement(ArrayList<GameStorage> gameList, String query) {
ArrayList<GameStorage> temp = new ArrayList<GameStorage>();
for(int i = 0; i < gameList.size(); i++) {
if(gameList.get(i).getName().contains(query)) {
temp.add(gameList.get(i));
}
return temp;
}
}
I initialize an empty GameStorage ArrayList, and use this to store all the desired elements and then return it. However, this does not work at all and Eclipse says that the i++ part is supposedly 'dead code' (and this supposedly means that the code never is reached), the function also says that I do not return a result of the desired type ArrayList<GameStorage>, even though I do. I don't know what I've done wrong.
Could someone perhaps enlighten me?
return should be after your loop body, not the last statement. Because it is the last statement i++ is never reached. Change it like
for(int i = 0; i < gameList.size(); i++) {
if(gameList.get(i).getName().contains(query)) {
temp.add(gameList.get(i));
}
}
return temp;
You could also use a for-each loop like
for (GameStorage gs : gameList) {
if (gs.getName().contains(query)) {
temp.add(gs);
}
}
return temp;
And in Java 8+ you might implement the entire method1 with a filter and Collectors
public static List<GameStorage> findElement(List<GameStorage> gameList, String query) {
return gameList.stream().filter(x -> x.getName().contains(query))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
1And I would prefer to program to the List interface.
You can make your code shorter with java 8+ lambda's example below
gameList.forEach((k)->{
if(k.getName().contains(query)){
temp.add(k)
}
}
So I wrote this function that behaves like Knuth's Algorithm X. Just for illustration - the function requires a large matrix of possible rows among which it tries to select the combination of the ones that make up for a legitimate solution.
The thing is, once we found the solution, since its void, the function doesn't return anything and instead just backtracks up (which consequently means it prints out sudoku for every level in the recursion depth).
Any suggestions on how to end the function the moment the solution is found? I am currently using System.exit(0) but that isn't nice since the program then ends the moment you find the solution (so anything you want to do afterwards is impossible - for example run the function on array of sudokus and solve each one).
The code is here:
public static void solve(ArrayList<int[]> solution, ArrayList<int[]> coverMatrix) {
if (Arrays.equals(solvedCase, workCase)) {
//this means we found the solution
drawSudoku(testOutput);
System.exit(0);
} else {
//find the column we didnt yet cover
int nextColToCover = findSMARTUnsatisfiedConstraint(coverMatrix, workCase);
//get all the rows that MIGHT solve this problem
ArrayList<int[]> rows = matchingRows(coverMatrix, nextColToCover);
//recusively try going down every one of them
for (int i = 0; i < rows.size(); i++) {
//we try this row as solution
solution.add(rows.get(i));
//we remove other rows that cover same columns (and create backups as well)
removeOtherRowsAndAdjustSolutionSet(coverMatrix);
if (isSolutionPossible(coverMatrix)) {
solve(solution, coverMatrix);
}
// here the backtracking occurs if algorithm can't proceed
// if we the solution exists, do not rebuild the data structure
if (!Arrays.equals(solvedCase, workCase)) {
restoreTheCoverMatrix(coverMatrix);
}
}
}
}
If I understand you correctly, you want to end recursion when you got the first solution. You can achieve this by having boolean return type for the method, and return true when you get first solution :.
public static boolean solve(ArrayList<int[]> solution, ArrayList<int[]> coverMatrix) {
if (Arrays.equals(solvedCase, workCase)) {
//this means we found the solution
drawSudoku(testOutput);
return true;
} else {
//find the column we didnt yet cover
int nextColToCover = findSMARTUnsatisfiedConstraint(coverMatrix, workCase);
//get all the rows that MIGHT solve this problem
ArrayList<int[]> rows = matchingRows(coverMatrix, nextColToCover);
//recusively try going down every one of them
for (int i = 0; i < rows.size(); i++) {
//we try this row as solution
solution.add(rows.get(i));
//we remove other rows that cover same columns (and create backups as well)
removeOtherRowsAndAdjustSolutionSet(coverMatrix);
if (isSolutionPossible(coverMatrix)) {
boolean result = solve(solution, coverMatrix);
if(result == true) return result;//else continue
}
// here the backtracking occurs if algorithm can't proceed
// if we the solution exists, do not rebuild the data structure
if (!Arrays.equals(solvedCase, workCase)) {
restoreTheCoverMatrix(coverMatrix);
}
}
return false;
}
}
You can use the AtomicReference Class with a Boolean:
public static void solve(ArrayList<int[]> solution, ArrayList<int[]> coverMatrix, AtomicReference<Boolean> test) {
if (Arrays.equals(solvedCase, workCase)) {
//this means we found the solution
drawSudoku(testOutput);
test.set(true);//System.exit(0);
}
solve(solution, coverMatrix, test);
if(!test.get())
{
// here the backtracking occurs if algorithm can't proceed
// if we the solution exists, do not rebuild the data structure
if (!Arrays.equals(solvedCase, workCase)) {
restoreTheCoverMatrix(coverMatrix);
}
}
You can call your method like this(just initialize the Boolean to false):
public static void main(String[] args)
{
AtomicReference<Boolean> test1 = new AtomicReference<Boolean>();
test1.set(false);
solve(***, ***, test1);
}
You could misuse the concept of exceptions for that, although I would not recommend it.
First define a custom exception class.
public class SuccessException extends Exception {}
Throw an instance on success.
if (Arrays.equals(solvedCase, workCase)) {
drawSudoku(testOutput);
throw new SuccessException();
}
Call the function initially in a try block.
try {
solve(solution, coverMatrix);
} catch(SuccessException e) {
/* Solution found! */
}
Maybe this is trivial question for experienced programmers but i wonder if there is any significant performance difference (with big or very big amount of data in collection) between two difference approaches of passing variables?
I've made a tests but with rather small data structures and i don't see any significant differences. Additionally i am not sure if these differences aren't caused by interferences from other applications run in background.
Class with collection:
public class TestCollection
{
ArrayList<String[]> myTestCollection = new ArrayList<String[]>();
public TestCollection()
{
fillCollection();
}
private void fillCollection()
{
// here is fillng with big amount of data
}
public ArrayList<String[]> getI()
{
return myTestCollection;
}
}
And methods that operate on collection:
public class Test
{
static TestCollection tc = new TestCollection();
public static void main(String[] args)
{
new Test().approach_1(tc);
new Test().approach_2(tc.getI());
}
public void approach_1(TestCollection t)
{
for (int i = 0; i < tc.getI().size(); i++)
{
// some actions with collection using tc.getI().DOSOMETHING
}
}
public void approach_2(ArrayList<String[]> t)
{
for (int i = 0; i < t.size(); i++)
{
// some actions with collection using t.DOSOMETHING
}
}
}
Regards.
No, there is no real difference here.
Java passes object references to methods, not copies of the entire object. This is similar to the pass by reference concept in other languages (although we are actually passing an object reference to the called method, passed by value).
If you come from a C programming background it's important to understand this!
And, some tips - firstly, it's better practise to declare your list as List<...> rather than ArrayList<...>, like this:
List<String[]> myTestCollection = new ArrayList<String[]>();
And secondly, you can use the improved for loop on lists, like this:
// first case
for (String[] s : tc.getI()) { /* do something */ }
// second case
for (String[] s : t) { /* do something */ }
Hope this helps :)
I'm fairly confident that there's no way this could work, but I wanted to ask anyway just in case I'm wrong:
I've heard many times that whenever you have a certain number of lines of very similar code in one batch, you should always loop through them.
So say I have something like the following.
setPos1(getCard1());
setPos2(getCard2());
setPos3(getCard3());
setPos4(getCard4());
setPos5(getCard5());
setPos6(getCard6());
setPos7(getCard7());
setPos8(getCard8());
setPos9(getCard9());
setPos10(getCard10());
setPos11(getCard11());
setPos12(getCard12());
There is no way to cut down on lines of code as, e.g., below, right?
for (i = 0; i < 12; i++) {
setPos + i(getCard + i)());
}
I'm sure this will have been asked before somewhere, but neither Google nor SO Search turned up with a negative proof.
Thanks for quickly confirming this!
No way to do that specifically in Java without reflection, and I don't think it would be worth it. This looks more like a cue that you should refactor your getcard function to take an integer argument. Then you could loop.
This is a simple snippet that shows how to loop through the getters of a certain object to check if the returned values are null, using reflection:
for (Method m : myObj.getClass().getMethods()) {
// The getter should start with "get"
// I ignore getClass() method because it never returns null
if (m.getName().startsWith("get") && !m.getName().equals("getClass")) {
// These getters have no arguments
if (m.invoke(myObj) == null) {
// Do something
}
}
}
Like the others stated, probably it's not an elegant implementation. It's just for the sake of completeness.
You could do it via reflection, but it would be cumbersome. A better approach might be to make generic setPos() and getCard() methods into which you could pass the index of the current item.
You need to ditch the getter/setter pairs, and use a List to store your objects rather then trying to stuff everything into one God object.
Here's a contrived example:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
public class Foo {
public static class Card {
int val;
public Card(int val) {
this.val = val;
}
public int getVal() {
return val;
}
}
public static class Position {
int value;
public Position(Card card) {
this.value = card.getVal();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Card> cards = new ArrayList<Card>(Arrays.asList(new Card(1), new Card(2), new Card(3)));
List<Position> positions = new ArrayList<Position>();
for (Card card : cards) {
positions.add(new Position(card));
}
}
}
You can't dynamically construct a method name and then invoke it (without reflection). Even with reflection it would be a bit brittle.
One option is to lump all those operations into one method like setAllPositions and just call that method.
Alternatively, you could have an array of positions, and then just loop over the array, setting the value at each index.
Card[] cardsAtPosition = new Card[12];
and then something like
public void setCardsAtEachPosition(Card[] valuesToSet) {
// check to make sure valuesToSet has the required number of cards
for (i = 0; i < cardsAtPosition.length; i++) {
cardsAtPosition[i] = valuesToSet[i];
}
}
Reflection would be your only option for your example case.