Related
So I have been reviewing my data structures and came across an interesting thought regarding Java generics and the Object class. I have implemented and run a "generic bag" in two different ways (Notice below: IObjectBag.java, ObjectBag.java, IGenericBag.java, and GenericBag.java) and have used them both (Notice: Below main.java and Output). I have removed some of the unnecessary code as per stack overflow rules but if you want the full implementation, let me know.
Also, I have researched the topic in many websites, books and courses in addition to looking at the source code for the ArrayList class here and I understand that my GenericBag is a better option than my ObjectBag but not well enough to explain it in a practical way during an interview. And I am confused that my GenericBag uses more casting operations than my ObjectBag in its implementation (see Remove and PrintBag).
So, other than the syntactic sugar, why is my GenericBag better? Please use my classes as examples.
Are there any important differences in runtime/overhead/space/time I am not noticing?
How would you answer this question or expect it to be answered in an interview?
Bonus questions: If you want, please answer the bonus questions in the Main and GenericBag comments (I think I can answer them myself though, just want to hear your opinion).
IObjectBag interface:
public interface IObjectBag {
void add(Object item);
Object remove(Object item) throws NoSuchElementException;
boolean isEmpty();
int find(Object item);
Object get(int index);
int numItems();
}
ObjectBag class:
public class ObjectBag implements IObjectBag {
private Object [] items; // the java class attribute that will hold out "ints"
private int numItems;
public static void printBag(IObjectBag bag) {
for(int i = 0; i < bag.numItems(); i++) {
System.out.println(bag.get(i));
}
}
public ObjectBag(int size) {
this.items = new Object[size]; // fills array with null values
this.numItems = 0;
}
public void add(Object item){
// adds item to end of bag
}
public Object remove(Object item) {
int index = this.find(item);
if(index == -1) throw new NoSuchElementException("oops nothing found");
Object out = this.items[index];
this.items[index] = null;
this.numItems -= 1;
if(index + 1 != this.items.length && this.items[index + 1] != null) {
for(int i = index; i < this.items.length; i++) {
if(i + 1 != this.items.length) this.items[i] = this.items[i + 1];
}
this.items[this.items.length - 1] = null;
}
return out;
}
public int find(Object item) {
// return index given item or -1
}
public Object get(int index) {
// returns item given index
}
}
IGenericBag class:
public interface IGenericBag <T> {
void add(T item);
T remove(T item) throws NoSuchElementException;
boolean isEmpty();
int find(T item);
T get(int index);
}
GenericBag class:
public class GenericBag<T> implements IGenericBag<T> {
// private T[] items; can't use this b/c see comment in constructor
private Object[] items;
private int numItems;
public static void printBag(GenericBag bag) {
for(int i = 0; i < bag.numItems(); i++) {
System.out.println(bag.get(i));
}
}
public GenericBag(int size) {
// this.items = new T[size]; Bonus: throws generic array creation error (why?)
this.items = new Object[size];
this.numItems = 0;
}
public void add(T item){
this.items[this.numItems] = item;
this.numItems += 1;
}
public T remove(T item) {
int index = this.find(item);
if(index == -1) throw new NoSuchElementException("oops nothing found");
T out = (T) this.items[index];
this.items[index] = null;
this.numItems -= 1;
if(index + 1 != this.items.length && this.items[index + 1] != null) {
for(int i = index; i < this.items.length; i++) {
if(i + 1 != this.items.length) this.items[i] = this.items[i + 1];
}
this.items[this.items.length - 1] = null;
}
return out;
}
public int find(Object item) {
// given object return index or throw exception
}
public T get(int index) {
return (T) this.items[index];
}
}
Main class:
public class Main {
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello StackOverFlow!");
Object int1 = new Integer(1);
Object int2 = new Integer(2);
Object int3 = new Integer(3);
/* using my object bag ************************************************/
System.out.println("using my object bag");
IObjectBag myObjectBag = new ObjectBag(3);
myObjectBag.add(int1);
myObjectBag.add(int2);
myObjectBag.add(int3);
myObjectBag.remove(int2);
ObjectBag.printBag(myObjectBag);
/* using my generic bag ***********************************************/
System.out.println("using generic bag");
// Bonus Question: using object like above causes error at add method (why?)
Integer int4 = new Integer(4);
Integer int5 = new Integer(5);
Integer int6 = new Integer(6);
GenericBag<Integer> myGenericBag = new GenericBag<Integer>(3);
//Bonus Question: using Interface decllaration like above causes error in print bag (why?)
myGenericBag.add(int4);
myGenericBag.add(int5);
myGenericBag.add(int6);
myGenericBag.remove(int4);
GenericBag.printBag(myGenericBag);
}
}
Output:
Hello StackOverFlow!
using my object bag
1
3
using generic bag
5
6
Problems with your ObjectBag that are 'automaticaly' solved by the type safety offered by your GenericBag implementation:
Accessing an entry returns Object, at this stage you do not know of what type Object is.
You can insert any types of Objects (mixed) e.g a String and an Integer into the same list, this is an anti pattern and causes non readable code (try it with your Generics bag!)
Because your compiler knows the type of your GenericBag after you have declared it, at any stage of your code if you hover over your genericBag instance you will know its type, this makes your code more readable and also extendable for other people
Generics also offer way more, imagine you want your GenericBag to only accept numbers, then you could write it as follows:
public class GenericBag<T extends Number>
My suggestion for you is to read some articles on Java basics and especially Generics, having a praxis based way of learning is a good thing, but there are plenty articles that can give you some very nice theoretical insight on the matter.
https://www.baeldung.com/java-generics
Reason of using, let's say, GenericBag<String> over ObjectBag is essentially the same as for using String (or any other type) over an Object:
Type safety.
You declare that some method returns a collection of Strings and nothing else, thus preventing yourself from putting there other objects, or trying to treat what you get from a bag as some other type. This might sound stupid when you have 100 lines of code, but this may save you lot of debugging time when you work with decent codebase.
Although, type safety is not a silver bullet, it is just an instrument, that some people find useful and some don't. I'm pretty sure it is a popular holywar topic for any programming forum.
If you feel comfortable working without this paradigm (Javascript background, right?), you might consider trying some dynamically typed language like Python instead of Java.
I have list which contains a property class object, In the list i have 3 status
not_paid
paid
part_paid
I want to sort my list below mentioned order.
First - not_paid
second- part_paid
third -paid
How can I sort my list using Comparator class.?
public static Comparator<OrderHistoryItemData> COMPARE_BY_PAYMENT = new Comparator<OrderHistoryItemData>() {
public int compare(OrderHistoryItemData one, OrderHistoryItemData other) {
String p1 = one.getAttributes().getFieldPaymentStatus();
String p2 = other.getAttributes().getFieldPaymentStatus();
if (p1.equals(p2)) {
return 0;
}
if (p1.equals("not_paid") && (p2.equals("part_paid") || p2.equals("not_paid"))) {
return -1;
}
if (p1.equals("not_paid") && p2.equals("not_paid")) {
return -1;
}
return 1;
}
};
This is my Code. i am getting below order using this code.
paid-->not_paid-->part_paid
This is my Update Code. I got my result.
public static Comparator<OrderHistoryItemData> COMPARE_BY_PAYMENT = new Comparator<OrderHistoryItemData>() {
public int compare(OrderHistoryItemData one, OrderHistoryItemData other) {
String p1 = one.getAttributes().getFieldPaymentStatus();
String p2 = other.getAttributes().getFieldPaymentStatus();
if (p1.equals(p2)) {
return 0;
}
if (p1.equals("not_paid") && (p2.equals("part_paid") || p2.equals("paid"))) {
return -1;
}
if (p1.equals("part_paid") && p2.equals("paid")) {
return -1;
}
return 1;
}
};
To avoid complex comparator, I encourage you to export your statuses to an enum. (Plus this will work if you will add more statuses in the future, without the need to change logic in your comparator):
enum PaymentStatus { // Write them in order you want to be sorted
NOT_PAID,
PART_PAID,
PAID
}
Then sorting will be as simple as :
list.sort(Comparator.comparing(item ->item.getAttributes().getFieldPaymentStatus()));
What you can do is first mapping the strings to integers in the desired order, and then simply subtracting them from eachother.
private static Comparator<Payments> comparator = new Comparator<Payments>() {
// Use this mapping function to map the statuses to ints.
// The lowest number comes first
private int map(String str) {
switch (str) {
case "not_paid":
return 0;
case "part_paid":
return 1;
case "paid":
return 2;
default:
return 3;
}
}
// Alternatively, you can use the Map interface to define the sorting
// order.
#Override
public int compare(Payments o1, Payments o2) {
return map(o1.status) - map(o2.status);
}
};
I suggest – Schidu Luca already mentioned it in his answer – that you use enums to define a fixed set of known values, like payment statuses. This provides compile-time safety.
Note: I wouldn't, however, suggest to bind the enum declaration order to the sorting order.
I am looking to implement a sort feature for my address book application.
I want to sort an ArrayList<Contact> contactArray. Contact is a class which contains four fields: name, home number, mobile number and address. I want to sort on name.
How can I write a custom sort function to do this?
Here's a tutorial about ordering objects:
The Java Tutorials - Collections - Object Ordering
Although I will give some examples, I would recommend to read it anyway.
There are various way to sort an ArrayList. If you want to define a natural (default) ordering, then you need to let Contact implement Comparable. Assuming that you want to sort by default on name, then do (nullchecks omitted for simplicity):
public class Contact implements Comparable<Contact> {
private String name;
private String phone;
private Address address;
#Override
public int compareTo(Contact other) {
return name.compareTo(other.name);
}
// Add/generate getters/setters and other boilerplate.
}
so that you can just do
List<Contact> contacts = new ArrayList<Contact>();
// Fill it.
Collections.sort(contacts);
If you want to define an external controllable ordering (which overrides the natural ordering), then you need to create a Comparator:
List<Contact> contacts = new ArrayList<Contact>();
// Fill it.
// Now sort by address instead of name (default).
Collections.sort(contacts, new Comparator<Contact>() {
public int compare(Contact one, Contact other) {
return one.getAddress().compareTo(other.getAddress());
}
});
You can even define the Comparators in the Contact itself so that you can reuse them instead of recreating them everytime:
public class Contact {
private String name;
private String phone;
private Address address;
// ...
public static Comparator<Contact> COMPARE_BY_PHONE = new Comparator<Contact>() {
public int compare(Contact one, Contact other) {
return one.phone.compareTo(other.phone);
}
};
public static Comparator<Contact> COMPARE_BY_ADDRESS = new Comparator<Contact>() {
public int compare(Contact one, Contact other) {
return one.address.compareTo(other.address);
}
};
}
which can be used as follows:
List<Contact> contacts = new ArrayList<Contact>();
// Fill it.
// Sort by address.
Collections.sort(contacts, Contact.COMPARE_BY_ADDRESS);
// Sort later by phone.
Collections.sort(contacts, Contact.COMPARE_BY_PHONE);
And to cream the top off, you could consider to use a generic javabean comparator:
public class BeanComparator implements Comparator<Object> {
private String getter;
public BeanComparator(String field) {
this.getter = "get" + field.substring(0, 1).toUpperCase() + field.substring(1);
}
public int compare(Object o1, Object o2) {
try {
if (o1 != null && o2 != null) {
o1 = o1.getClass().getMethod(getter, new Class[0]).invoke(o1, new Object[0]);
o2 = o2.getClass().getMethod(getter, new Class[0]).invoke(o2, new Object[0]);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
// If this exception occurs, then it is usually a fault of the developer.
throw new RuntimeException("Cannot compare " + o1 + " with " + o2 + " on " + getter, e);
}
return (o1 == null) ? -1 : ((o2 == null) ? 1 : ((Comparable<Object>) o1).compareTo(o2));
}
}
which you can use as follows:
// Sort on "phone" field of the Contact bean.
Collections.sort(contacts, new BeanComparator("phone"));
(as you see in the code, possibly null fields are already covered to avoid NPE's during sort)
In addition to what was already posted by BalusC it may be worth pointing that since Java 8 we can shorten our code and write it like:
Collection.sort(yourList, Comparator.comparing(YourClass::getSomeComparableField));
or since List now have sort method also like
yourList.sort(Comparator.comparing(YourClass::getSomeComparableField));
Explanation:
Since Java 8, functional interfaces (interfaces with only one abstract method - they can have more default or static methods) can be easily implemented using:
lambdas arguments -> body
or method references source::method.
Since Comparator<T> has only one abstract method int compare(T o1, T o2) it is functional interface.
So instead of (example from #BalusC answer)
Collections.sort(contacts, new Comparator<Contact>() {
public int compare(Contact one, Contact other) {
return one.getAddress().compareTo(other.getAddress());
}
});
we can reduce this code to:
Collections.sort(contacts, (Contact one, Contact other) -> {
return one.getAddress().compareTo(other.getAddress());
});
We can simplify this (or any) lambda by skipping
argument types (Java will infer them based on method signature)
or {return ... }
So instead of
(Contact one, Contact other) -> {
return one.getAddress().compareTo(other.getAddress();
}
we can write
(one, other) -> one.getAddress().compareTo(other.getAddress())
Also now Comparator has static methods like comparing(FunctionToComparableValue) or comparing(FunctionToValue, ValueComparator) which we could use to easily create Comparators which should compare some specific values from objects.
In other words we can rewrite above code as
Collections.sort(contacts, Comparator.comparing(Contact::getAddress));
//assuming that Address implements Comparable (provides default order).
This page tells you all you need to know about sorting collections, such as ArrayList.
Basically you need to
make your Contact class implement the Comparable interface by
creating a method public int compareTo(Contact anotherContact) within it.
Once you do this, you can just call Collections.sort(myContactList);,
where myContactList is ArrayList<Contact> (or any other collection of Contact).
There's another way as well, involving creating a Comparator class, and you can read about that from the linked page as well.
Example:
public class Contact implements Comparable<Contact> {
....
//return -1 for less than, 0 for equals, and 1 for more than
public compareTo(Contact anotherContact) {
int result = 0;
result = getName().compareTo(anotherContact.getName());
if (result != 0)
{
return result;
}
result = getNunmber().compareTo(anotherContact.getNumber());
if (result != 0)
{
return result;
}
...
}
}
BalusC and bguiz have already given very complete answers on how to use Java's built-in Comparators.
I just want to add that google-collections has an Ordering class which is more "powerful" than the standard Comparators.
It might be worth checking out. You can do cool things such as compounding Orderings, reversing them, ordering depending on a function's result for your objects...
Here is a blog post that mentions some of its benefits.
You need make your Contact classes implement Comparable, and then implement the compareTo(Contact) method. That way, the Collections.sort will be able to sort them for you. Per the page I linked to, compareTo 'returns a negative integer, zero, or a positive integer as this object is less than, equal to, or greater than the specified object.'
For example, if you wanted to sort by name (A to Z), your class would look like this:
public class Contact implements Comparable<Contact> {
private String name;
// all the other attributes and methods
public compareTo(Contact other) {
return this.name.compareTo(other.name);
}
}
By using lambdaj you can sort a collection of your contacts (for example by their name) as it follows
sort(contacts, on(Contact.class).getName());
or by their address:
sort(contacts, on(Contacts.class).getAddress());
and so on. More in general, it offers a DSL to access and manipulate your collections in many ways, like filtering or grouping your contacts based on some conditions, aggregate some of their property values, etc.
Ok, I know this was answered a long time ago... but, here's some new info:
Say the Contact class in question already has a defined natural ordering via implementing Comparable, but you want to override that ordering, say by name. Here's the modern way to do it:
List<Contact> contacts = ...;
contacts.sort(Comparator.comparing(Contact::getName).reversed().thenComparing(Comparator.naturalOrder());
This way it will sort by name first (in reverse order), and then for name collisions it will fall back to the 'natural' ordering implemented by the Contact class itself.
The Collections.sort is a good sort implementation. If you don't have The comparable implemented for Contact, you will need to pass in a Comparator implementation
Of note:
The sorting algorithm is a modified mergesort (in which the merge is omitted if the highest element in the low sublist is less than the lowest element in the high sublist). This algorithm offers guaranteed n log(n) performance. The specified list must be modifiable, but need not be resizable. This implementation dumps the specified list into an array, sorts the array, and iterates over the list resetting each element from the corresponding position in the array. This avoids the n2 log(n) performance that would result from attempting to sort a linked list in place.
The merge sort is probably better than most search algorithm you can do.
I did it by the following way.
number and name are two arraylist. I have to sort name .If any change happen to name arralist order then the number arraylist also change its order.
public void sortval(){
String tempname="",tempnum="";
if (name.size()>1) // check if the number of orders is larger than 1
{
for (int x=0; x<name.size(); x++) // bubble sort outer loop
{
for (int i=0; i < name.size()-x-1; i++) {
if (name.get(i).compareTo(name.get(i+1)) > 0)
{
tempname = name.get(i);
tempnum=number.get(i);
name.set(i,name.get(i+1) );
name.set(i+1, tempname);
number.set(i,number.get(i+1) );
number.set(i+1, tempnum);
}
}
}
}
}
use this method:
private ArrayList<myClass> sortList(ArrayList<myClass> list) {
if (list != null && list.size() > 1) {
Collections.sort(list, new Comparator<myClass>() {
public int compare(myClass o1, myClass o2) {
if (o1.getsortnumber() == o2.getsortnumber()) return 0;
return o1.getsortnumber() < o2.getsortnumber() ? 1 : -1;
}
});
}
return list;
}
`
and use: mySortedlist = sortList(myList);
No need to implement comparator in your class.
If you want inverse order swap 1 and -1
With java 8 feature
List<Contact> contact = contactArray.stream().sorted((c1, c2) -> ((c1.getName().compareTo(c2.getName())))).collect(Collectors.toList());
You shoud use the Arrays.sort function. The containing classes should implement Comparable.
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.
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).