We Keep Coding

Re/Create an immutable object that contains an immutable object list

Background
I am trying to create an immutable object that contains a list of immutable objects, as well as object type totals within the list.
I created a slightly sudo gist to try and show what I mean.
Gist - Adjusting an immutable object that contains an immutable object list.
Explanation
My example shows how I'm currently doing it, it does work. However not for all cases.
My VeggieCartView will have a recyclerview that gets filled with a new/saved VeggieCart.
Each VeggieCart has a list of veggies. Veggie totals etc...
I then have a helper class VeggieChanger, it contains an rx.Consumer<Veggie[]> that gets set and accepts any 1:1 veggie changes from the veggie views.
The VeggieCartView sets the consumer so when any one veggie changes, it creates an updated cart using the changes' corresponding cart factory method. The adapter is used to change/retrieve its list.
Working and not
This works well for changing one at a time, however batching changes is throwing concurrency exceptions.
I realize my gist is not runnable and doesn't show most boilerplate, and that I may be fundamentally wrong with some or all of my approaches. With that said I still hope someone can give me advice on how to better implement what I'm trying to do.
If more information is needed to understand, please ask. Thank you for anybody who does have help to offer,
Jon.

I ended up figuring out my main issue.
By adding this to my VeggieCartView:
public void bagAllCanned() {
final Veggie[] canned = new Veggie[cart.canTotal()];
final Veggie[] bagged = new Veggie[canned.length];
int t = 0;
final List<Veggie> veggies = cart.veggies();
for (int i = 0; i < veggies.size(); i++) {
final Veggie veggie = veggies.get(i);
if (veggie.canned()) {
canned[t] = veggie;
if (veggie instanceof Potato)
bagged[t] = Potato.can(veggie);
else if (veggie instanceof Tomato)
bagged[t] = Tomato.can(veggie);
t++;
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < canned.length; i++) {
veggieChange(canned[i], bagged[i]);
}
}
It fixes the concurrency errors.
I'm still unsure if my approach is correct or not. So even though the question is mostly answered, opinions are still VERY welcome.

Returning an arraylist and iterating throught the returned list

Im trying to return an arraylist from the method getNumbers (which contains strings)
public ArrayList<String> getNumbers(){
return (numeros);
}
Then by using a searcher im trying to compare between a variable m (which contains the desired info to look for) and the returned list.
public class NumberSearcher {
Reader reader = new KeyboardReader();
public NumberSearcher(ArrayList<Contacto> contactos){
String m = reader.read();
for(int i = 0; i<contactos.size();i++){
if(contactos.get(i).getPhoneNumbers().contains(m)){
contactos.get(i).display();
}
}
}
}
I have succeded in creating a searcher using this very same style but only when using methods that return String alone.
The problem is its not working. If there there would be a match it should display the contact information but it seem it isnt "comparing" properly because nothing happens.

It's difficult to understand what you're asking here. Your getNumbers method doesn't get called from the second code block, so I don't see where that is relating to anything. It's also unclear what you mean the problem is. Can you try to give us a more detailed description of what is going wrong?
Anyways, I'll try to give you some general advice here, but without knowing the issue it's hard to say how much this will help.
Firstly, it is almost always recommended to have your method's return type as the List interface, rather than a specific implementation (ArrayList, etc). You can specify a return type from within the method but this way they client doesn't need to know what the underlying data structure is, and you are also flexible to future data structure changes.
public List<String> getNumbers(){
return (numeros);
}
Secondly, I would probably change the name 'getNumbers' to something slightly more precise - if I see a 'getNumbers' method I expect it to return some numeric entities, not a list of strings. If they are phone numbers then explicity call it 'getPhoneNumbers'.
Though I'm not entirely sure I understand what you asking, I think this may solve your issues:
for(int i = 0; i < contactos.size(); i++) {
Contacto next = contactos.get(i);
if(next.getEmails().contains(m)) {
next.display();
}
}
And as an afterthought, is there any specific reason you're only checking string containment? I would suggest that you check case-insensitive equality unless you really do want to find out if the string just contains the element.

Is this what you are looking for?
public class EmailSearcher {
Reader reader = new KeyboardReader();
public EmailSearcher(ArrayList<Contacto> contactos){
while(reader.read() != 'keyThatTerminates') {
String m = reader.read();
for(int i = 0; i<contactos.size();i++){
var row = contactos.get(i);
if(row.getEmails().contains(m)){
row.display();
}
}
}
}
}

Java Server Client, shared variable between threads

I am working on a project to create a simple auction server that multiple clients connect to. The server class implements Runnable and so creates a new thread for each client that connects.
I am trying to have the current highest bid stored in a variable that can be seen by each client. I found answers saying to use AtomicInteger, but when I used it with methods such as atomicVariable.intValue() I got null pointer exception errors.
What ways can I manipulate the AtomicInteger without getting this error or is there an other way to have a shared variable that is relatively simple?
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
Update
I have the AtomicInteger working. The problem is now that only the most recent client to connect to the server seems to be able to interact with it. The other client just sort of freeze.
Would I be correct in saying this is a problem with locking?

Well, most likely you forgot to initialize it:
private final AtomicInteger highestBid = new AtomicInteger();
However working with highestBid requires a great deal of knowledge to get it right without any locking. For example if you want to update it with new highest bid:
public boolean saveIfHighest(int bid) {
int currentBid = highestBid.get();
while (currentBid < bid) {
if (highestBid.compareAndSet(currentBid, bid)) {
return true;
}
currentBid = highestBid.get();
}
return false;
}
or in a more compact way:
for(int currentBid = highestBid.get(); currentBid < bid; currentBid = highestBid.get()) {
if (highestBid.compareAndSet(currentBid, bid)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
You might wonder, why is it so hard? Image two threads (requests) biding at the same time. Current highest bid is 10. One is biding 11, another 12. Both threads compare current highestBid and realize they are bigger. Now the second thread happens to be first and update it to 12. Unfortunately the first request now steps in and revert it to 11 (because it already checked the condition).
This is a typical race condition that you can avoid either by explicit synchronization or by using atomic variables with implicit compare-and-set low-level support.
Seeing the complexity introduced by much more performant lock-free atomic integer you might want to restore to classic synchronization:
public synchronized boolean saveIfHighest(int bid) {
if (highestBid < bid) {
highestBid = bid;
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}

I wouldn't look at the problem like that. I would simply store all the bids in a ConcurrentSkipListSet, which is a thread-safe SortedSet. With the correct implementation of compareTo(), which determines the ordering, the first element of the Set will automatically be the highest bid.
Here's some sample code:
public class Bid implements Comparable<Bid> {
String user;
int amountInCents;
Date created;
#Override
public int compareTo(Bid o) {
if (amountInCents == o.amountInCents) {
return created.compareTo(created); // earlier bids sort first
}
return o.amountInCents - amountInCents; // larger bids sort first
}
}
public class Auction {
private SortedSet<Bid> bids = new ConcurrentSkipListSet<Bid>();
public Bid getHighestBid() {
return bids.isEmpty() ? null : bids.first();
}
public void addBid(Bid bid) {
bids.add(bid);
}
}
Doing this has the following advantages:
Automatically provides a bidding history
Allows a simple way to save any other bid info you need
You could also consider this method:
/**
* #param bid
* #return true if the bid was successful
*/
public boolean makeBid(Bid bid) {
if (bids.isEmpty()) {
bids.add(bid);
return true;
}
if (bid.compareTo(bids.first()) <= 0) {
return false;
}
bids.add(bid);
return true;
}

Using an AtomicInteger is fine, provided you initialise it as Tomasz has suggested.
What you might like to think about, however, is whether all you will literally ever need to store is just the highest bid as an integer. Will you never need to store associated information, such as the bidding time, user ID of the bidder etc? Because if at a later stage you do, you'll have to start undoing your AtomicInteger code and replacing it.
I would be tempted from the outset to set things up to store arbitrary information associated with the bid. For example, you can define a "Bid" class with the relevant field(s). Then on each bid, use an AtomicReference to store an instance of "Bid" with the relevant information. To be thread-safe, make all the fields on your Bid class final.
You could also consider using an explicit Lock (e.g. see the ReentrantLock class) to control access to the highest bid. As Tomasz mentions, even with an AtomicInteger (or AtomicReference: the logic is essentially the same) you need to be a little careful about how you access it. The atomic classes are really designed for cases where they are very frequently accessed (as in thousands of times per second, not every few minutes as on a typical auction site). They won't really give you any performance benefit here, and an explicit Lock object might be more intuitive to program with.

Get the array from an AtomicLongArray

Using Java 1.6 and the AtomicLongArray, I'd like to "copy" the original AtomicLongArray into a new one. There is a constructor that takes an array (AtomicLongArray(long[])), so I thought I could just get the array from the original one and give it to the constructor.
Sadly, the actual long[] in the AtomicLongArray is private and there seem to be no getters for it. Is there any way to do this, meaning copy the values from one AtomicLongArray to another? I can't create my own class based on this class, as the sun.misc.Unsafe class is not available to me.
This is needed because I'm going to iterate over the values, and I don't want them modified by another thread during iteration. So I thought I could make a copy and use that for the iteration...
Thanks!
Phillip

I suspect you have to create your own long[] and populate it first, or just iterate over the original:
AtomicLongArray copy = new AtomicLongArray(original.length());
for (int i = 0; i < copy.length(); i++)
{
copy.set(i, original.get(i));
}
Note that although each individual operation in AtomicLongArray is atomic, there are no bulk operations - so there's no way of getting a "snapshot" of the whole array at time T. If you want that sort of behaviour, I believe you'll need to use synchronization.

This data structure allows concurrent updates to individual entries in the collection. There is not overall lock, so you can't prevent another thread changing the contents while you are iterating over it.
If you need this, you need a workaround, e.g. copy the array and loop again to check it hasn't changed. If changed, repeat. Or you need a collection which supports a global lock.
long[] copy = new long[original.length()];
boolean changed = true;
// repeat until we get an unchanged copy.
while(true) {
for (int i = 0; i < copy.length(); i++) {
long l = original.get(i);
changed |= copy[i] != l;
copy[i] = l;
}
if (!changed) break;
changed = false;
}
This is not completely safe, but may be enough for what you need.

Java: For loop and If algorithm

I've this question from an assignment to create a Store which rent out books, using a Store.java and Book.java. I've finished this assignment, but I'm curious for better algorithm to a specific part.
--
Book.java
public class Book {
private String name;
Book(String name)
this.name = name;
public String getName()
return name;
}
Store.java
Inside main();
Book bookObj[] = new Book[3]; //Create 3 Array of Object.
bookObj[0] = new Book("Game Over");
bookObj[1] = new Book("Shrek");
bookObj[2] = new Book("Ghost");
Scanner console = new Scanner(System.in)
input = console.nextLine();
Assuming, input = Devil.
Now, I need to do a simple search to check whether the specific book exist.
Example:
for(int i = 0; i < bookObj.length; i++) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input))
System.out.println("Book Found!");
}
Apparently, this is a for loop that cycles through the array of object and checks whether such Book exist. Now, the problem arise when I want to give an output that the Book was not found.
Example:
for(int i = 0; i < bookObj.length; i++) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input))
System.out.println("Book Found!");
else
System.out.println("Book not Found!");
}
The problem with the above code is that Book not Found would be printed thrice. My goal is to avoid such problem. I do have solutions to this, but I'm still in search for a better one to use that utilizes getName(), which in my opinion still has room to improve.
Usually, in structural programming, I would do the following,
for(int i = 0; i < bookObj.length; i++) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input))
System.out.println("Book Found!");
else if(i == bookObj.length - 1)
System.out.println("Book not Found!");
}
This is useful to tell whether it's the end of the loop, and the search has ended, but there was no successful result from the search.
How should I think of it in Object Oriented way?
All in all, my question is,
Is there a better way to write the above code rather than checking that it's the end of the line?
Is there a better way to utilize getName() method or to use other methods?

You should loop through the array and use an index / boolean flag to store whether or not the book is found. Then print the message in the end, based on the index / flag value.
int foundAtIndex = -1;
for(int i = 0; i < bookObj.length; i++) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input)) {
foundAtIndex = i; // store the actual index for later use
break; // no need to search further
}
}
if(foundAtIndex >= 0)
System.out.println("Book Found!");
else
System.out.println("Book not Found!");
Alternatively (unless your assignment specifically requires using an array) you should prefer a Set, which can do the search for you with a single call to contains().
How should I think of it in Object Oriented way?
When looking at a single method, there is not much difference between procedural and OO style. The differences start to appear at a higher level, when trying to organize a bunch of conceptually related data and methods that operate on these.
The OO paradigm is to tie the methods to the data they operate on, and encapsulate both into coherent objects and classes. These classes are preferably representations of important domain concepts. So for your book store, you may want to put all book related code into your Book class. However, the above search method (and the collection of books it operates on) is not related to any particular book instance, so you have different choices:
put both the collection of books and the search method into Store (probably as regular members), or
put them into Book as static members.
The first choice is more natural, so I normally would prefer that. However, under specific circumstances the second option might be preferable. In (OO) design, there are hardly ever clean "yes/no" answers - rather tradeoffs between different options, each having their own strengths and weaknesses.

You could introduce state and remember whether you have found the book or not.
If you're not using Java 1.4 or earlier, you could also use the foreach loop syntax:
boolean bookFound = false;
for(Book currentBook : bookObj) {
if(currentBook.getName().equals(input))
//TODO: see above
}
Also, I would suggest looking into the Collections library, and replace your array with a list or set:
Set<Book> books = new HashSet<Book>();
books.put(new Book("Game Over"));
books.put(new Book("Shrek"));
books.put(new Book("Ghost"));
And, while were at it, you could also think about when two books are equal and override equals() and hashCode() accordingly. If equal() would be changed to check the title, you could simply use books.contains(new Book(input)); and have the libraries do the work for you.

To solve the problem in a better way you must understand that the power of Java comes not from the language itself but from the Java Framework.
You should learn the usage of the Java Collection classes (never work with arrays anymore). Then you will be able to solve the search with just one line of code:
ArrayList<Book> listOfBooks;
// init your list here
listOfBooks.contains(new Book(input));
To make this work, you must also learn how to correctly implement the equals() method of your Book class.
Happy learning!

Here is a working solution :
import java.util.Scanner;
public class Store {
private static class Book {
private String name;
Book(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String input;
Book[] bookObj = new Book[3];
bookObj[0] = new Book("Game Over");
bookObj[1] = new Book("Shrek");
bookObj[2] = new Book("Ghost");
Scanner console = new Scanner(System.in);
input = console.nextLine();
boolean found = false;
int i = 0;
while(!found && i < bookObj.length) {
if(bookObj[i].getName().equals(input)) {
System.out.println("Book Found at position : " + i);
found = true;
} else {
i++;
}
}
if(!found) {
System.out.println("Book not Found!");
}
// Here i contains the indice of the element found in the array.
}
}

You've gotten some pretty good advice thus far. You asked if there was a more Object Oriented way of thinking about the problem so I thought I'd try and shed some light on it. As Peter already mentioned at this level of the design it's a single method implementation so the approach is going to be fairly similar as say a procedural approach. What's the advantage? In a word reuse. If you needed to find a book by name in lots of places then moving the code to it's own class will help.
So what you have is a single Book instance to encapsulate behavior around a single book, but you want to have behavior about multiple books, or a collection of books. You can keep the data (array of books), and the method that account on them separate as you outlined in your program. However, if we wanted to collect a place for doing behavior on a collection of books we can define a new class. Let's call it Library, and we might do something like the following:
public class Library {
private Book[] books;
private bookCount = 0;
public Library( int numberOfTotalBooks ) {
books = new Book[numberOfTotalBooks];
}
public boolean addBook( Book book ) {
if( bookCount < book.length ) {
books[bookCount++] = book;
return true;
}
return false;
}
public Book findByTitle( String title ) {
for( int i = 0; i < bookCount; i++ ) {
if( books[i].getTitle().equals( title ) ) {
return books[i];
}
}
// didn't find one
return null;
}
}
So a couple of things to note about doing things this way. One is that when we work with a Library we don't know there is an Array back there. We could use an array, a Set, a List, or a database (most common). The point being the code that calls these functions just works with the interface of Library (not a literal Java interface, but the method signature of Library). Also this is a higher level interface. We don't worry about iterating over the books, doing for loops, if statements, etc. We just call a method saying "Hey find this book title in the Library". How that's done we don't care. This is the basic tenant of Object Orientation called encapsulation, and it's deceptively powerful. It's really about how we delegate responsibility in our program, and give the details of a job to individual class or classes. If Library had only public members (i.e. books and bookCount), or getter/setters then the client wouldn't be getting any advantages because the client would still have to do all the heavy lifting. The trick to OO is figuring out what can be delegated out of an object, without creating problems. This takes practice, and experience.
The second thing here is we've separated the presentation from the act of finding a book. The method you wrote assumed the next step which was to print "Hey we found it." However, Library object simply returns the Book to you when it finds it, or null if it didn't. That makes it possible to print to the console, display in a GUI, or serialize it to a JSON stream in a server. The act of finding a book is separate from the visualization. This is another important aspect of programming in general, but some what related to object orientation and encapsulation. This is typically called separation of concerns. The console application has concerns about supporting the UI, and printing the console. While the Library just manages cataloging and managing the book collection. How those details are performed neither cares.
In the end Library is a reusable class. We can use it in a console application, desktop, web, or middleware server. More importantly is we can also reuse the calls to findByTitle or addBooks from multiple locations within a single program. Also by putting the methods with the data we create a barrier to where that function can be used. You can't do it anywhere in your program. You have to have a reference to Library. If you don't have reference to a Library instance then you shouldn't be calling it. This can be troublesome to new developers because they lack the experience to properly organize their programs to not get into trouble with this (then they start doing value objects, creating statics, singletons, etc and things turn into a big ball of mud). It's a double edged sword.
One more thing I'd like to point out is say we wanted to model two Libraries. We have a Library uptown and downtown, and we want to allow people to check out books from either Library. With OO that's really easy to represent:
Library uptown = new Library( 50 );
Library downtown = new Library( 100 );
Now we can check out books from one or the other. And I didn't use statics (i.e. global variables) so reusing that logic is really easy. These are the basics of OO so they are really deep topics. Strange how I can write so much on very simple topics. Anyway I hope this helped you understand your program a little deeper, and see how you can use OO to help you.

chubbsondubs came closest to giving a correct answer to this question
What he missed is that his algorithm is incorrect because it contains two tests, when only one is needed. The correct code requires only 3 statements and is as follows:
public boolean zLibaryContains( String title ) {
books[bookCount] = title;
int xBook = 0;
while( true )
if( books[xBook].getTitle().equals( title ) )
return xBook != bookCount;
else xBook++;
}
Noticeably smaller and faster than all other solutions. Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Object-oriented code is a crutch to support poor designs that would otherwise be too complex to understand. The goal is write code that is so easy to understand and maintain that OO is unnecessary and would make the program worse. When your program can be improved by adding OO, it means you are doing something wrong to begin with.