We Keep Coding

How to make custom Tuple class generic?

I'm trying to make a generic tuple class. It stores its elements as an ArrayList. Of course, this class should override hashcode and equals methods.
How could I make hashcode method for this class? You see, in the code, I am having trouble.
Also, for the equals method, why does the compiler force me to use the '?'. Why couldn't I just use the T?
public static class Tuple<T> {
ArrayList<T> tuple = new ArrayList<>();
public Tuple(ArrayList<T> items) {
for (T item : items) {
tuple.add(item);
}
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
T sum = ???;
for (T item : tuple) {
sum += item.hashCode();
}
return sum;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (o instanceof Tuple<?>) {
Tuple<?> tup= (Tuple<?>) o;
if (tup.tuple.size() != this.tuple.size()) {
return false;
}
for (int i = 0; i < this.tuple.size(); i++) {
if (this.tuple.get(i) != tup.tuple.get(i)) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
}

As mentioned in the comments, we should delegate the hashCode and the equals methods to the ArrayList<T> tuple instance variable. For the hashCode it's trivial. For the equals it's just a little more complicated than that because we don't want our custom Tuple to be equals with an ArrayList. So here it is:
public class Tuple<T> {
// I made this private because I'm pedantric ;)
private final ArrayList<T> tuple = new ArrayList<>();
// this does the same as your code, it's just easier to read
public Tuple(ArrayList<T> items) {
tuple.addAll(items);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return tuple.hashCode();
}
// generated by eclipse
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
Tuple other = (Tuple) obj;
if (tuple == null) {
if (other.tuple != null)
return false;
} else if (!tuple.equals(other.tuple))
return false;
return true;
}
}
If you want to deal with the case when the tuple can be null, then you can use a slightly more complex hashCode:
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + ((tuple == null) ? 0 : tuple.hashCode());
return tuple.hashCode();
}
In general, I don't like to write these methods myself. Usually, I make my IDE to generate the stuff. All I need to take care of is to re-generate it when I add new fields. Apache HashCodeBuilder and EqualsBuilder are also great alternatives.

Sorting by enum on adding to Set

I need to create priority set/array that bases on:
public interface IListener
{
public Priority getPriority();
public enum Priority
{
HIGHEST,
HIGH,
NORMAL,
LOW,
LOWEST;
}
}
IListeners are stored in:
HashMap<Class<? extends IListener>, Set<IListener>> listeners = new HashMap<>();
I am looking to make method that will always add IListener in 1st place after its Priority group.
Example:
Given Set contains some IListeners with this order.
{ HIGHEST, HIGHEST, HIGH, HIGH, LOW, LOW, LOW, LOWEST }
Adding listener with Priority == HIGH would result in:
{ HIGHEST, HIGHEST, HIGH, HIGH, HIGH, LOW, LOW, LOW, LOWEST }
Bold one being newly added.
I know I could just iterate and add at 1st "free slot", but question is rather - does Java provide some good-looking (maybe better?) solutions? Might be just for future reference.

As indicated in the comments, I don't think there is any collection in the JDK that exactly meets your requirements.
IListenerSet is an implementation of Set that meets your needs. The iterator always returns the elements in order of priority. If two elements have the same priority, they are returned in the order they were put into the set. The set supports addition and removal. The iterator supports the remove() method. The set cannot contain null, and throws a NullPointerException if you try to add null. The set cannot contain an IListener for which getPriority() returns null, and throws an IllegalArgumentException if you try to add such an element.
public final class IListenerSet<T extends IListener> extends AbstractSet<T> {
private final Map<IListener.Priority, Set<T>> map;
public IListenerSet() {
map = new EnumMap<>(IListener.Priority.class);
for (IListener.Priority p : IListener.Priority.values())
map.put(p, new LinkedHashSet<>());
}
public IListenerSet(Collection<? extends T> collection) {
this();
addAll(collection);
}
#Override
public int size() {
int size = 0;
for (Set<T> set : map.values())
size += set.size();
return size;
}
#Override
public boolean contains(Object o) {
if (!(o instanceof IListener))
return false;
IListener listener = (IListener) o;
IListener.Priority p = listener.getPriority();
return p != null && map.get(p).contains(listener);
}
#Override
public boolean add(T listener) {
IListener.Priority p = listener.getPriority();
if (p == null)
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
return map.get(p).add(listener);
}
#Override
public boolean remove(Object o) {
if (!(o instanceof IListener))
return false;
IListener listener = (IListener) o;
IListener.Priority p = listener.getPriority();
return p != null && map.get(p).remove(listener);
}
#Override
public void clear() {
for (Set<T> set : map.values())
set.clear();
}
#Override
public Iterator<T> iterator() {
return new Iterator<T>() {
private Iterator<T> iterator = map.get(IListener.Priority.values()[0]).iterator();
private int nextIndex = 1;
private Iterator<T> nextIterator = null;
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
if (iterator.hasNext() || nextIterator != null)
return true;
IListener.Priority[] priorities = IListener.Priority.values();
while (nextIndex < priorities.length) {
Set<T> set = map.get(priorities[nextIndex++]);
if (!set.isEmpty()) {
nextIterator = set.iterator();
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
#Override
public T next() {
if (iterator.hasNext())
return iterator.next();
if (!hasNext())
throw new NoSuchElementException();
iterator = nextIterator;
nextIterator = null;
return iterator.next();
}
#Override
public void remove() {
iterator.remove();
}
};
}
}

An alternative approach is to use TreeSet with custom comparator and automatically assign autogenerated ids to the elements added to the set, so the latter elements always get bigger id which can be used in comparison:
public class IListenerSet extends AbstractSet<IListener> {
private long maxId = 0;
private final Map<IListener, Long> ids = new HashMap<>();
private final Set<IListener> set = new TreeSet<>(new Comparator<IListener>() {
#Override
public int compare(IListener o1, IListener o2) {
int res = o1.getPriority().compareTo(o2.getPriority());
if(res == 0)
res = ids.get(o1).compareTo(ids.get(o2));
return res;
}
});
#Override
public Iterator<IListener> iterator() {
return new Iterator<IListener>() {
Iterator<IListener> it = set.iterator();
private IListener e;
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return it.hasNext();
}
#Override
public IListener next() {
this.e = it.next();
return e;
}
#Override
public void remove() {
it.remove();
ids.remove(e);
}
};
}
#Override
public int size() {
return set.size();
}
#Override
public boolean contains(Object o) {
return ids.containsKey(o);
}
#Override
public boolean add(IListener e) {
if(ids.get(e) != null)
return false;
// assign new id and store it in the internal map
ids.put(e, ++maxId);
return set.add(e);
}
#Override
public boolean remove(Object o) {
if(!ids.containsKey(o)) return false;
set.remove(o);
return true;
}
#Override
public void clear() {
ids.clear();
set.clear();
}
}

Keep it easy:
You can combine several kinds of collections:
A LinkedHashSet allows you to store items by ordering them by insertion order (and with no repeated items).
A TreeMap allows you to map keys and values ordering them according to the keys.
Thus, you can declare this combination:
TreeMap<IListener.Priority, LinkedHashSet<IListener>> listenersByPriority=new TreeMap<IListener.Priority, LinkedHashSet<IListener>>(new PriorityComparator());
... and encapsulate it in a proper abstraction to manage it:
public class ListenerManager
{
private final TreeMap<IListener.Priority, LinkedHashSet<IListener>> listenersByPriority=new TreeMap<IListener.Priority, LinkedHashSet<IListener>>();
private int size;
public void addListener(IListener listener)
{
synchronized (listenersByPriority)
{
LinkedHashSet<IListener> list=listenersByPriority.get(listener.getPriority());
if (list == null)
{
list=new LinkedHashSet<IListener>();
listenersByPriority.put(listener.getPriority(), list);
}
list.add(listener);
size++;
}
}
public Iterator<IListener> iterator()
{
synchronized (listenersByPriority)
{
List<IListener> output=new ArrayList<IListener>(size);
for (LinkedHashSet<IListener> list : listenersByPriority.values())
{
for (IListener listener : list)
{
output.add(listener);
}
}
return output.iterator();
}
}
}
When declaring a TreeMap, it is usually necessary an specific implementation of Comparator coupled to the key class, but it is not necessary in this case, because enums are already comparable by its ordinal. (thanks to Paul Boddington). And the ordinal of each enum item is the position it is placed in the declaration.

Interview: Collections Iterator

Hi guys i got this as an interview question and was having trouble with it. I am familiar with generics/collections & iterator but the manner i which the Collection is declared completely threw me.
Heres the question: Contained in the provided workspace is cocI, the start of a class that implements an Iterator that can be used to iterate a Collection of Collections. The Collection of Collections is passed into the constructor of the class. The Iterator should iterate through the contents depth-first.
For example, if the Collection of Collections looks like the following:
[0] – [“A”, “B”, “C”]
[1] – [“D”]
[2] – [“E”, “F”]
The iterator should then return the contents in the following order: “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”
Q.Provide implementations for the hasNext() and next() methods in cocI
Thanks
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.Iterator;
public class cocI implements Iterator<Object> {
private Collection<Collection<Object>> _collOfColl = null;
public cocI(Collection<Collection<Object>> collofColl) {
_collOfColl = collofColl;
}
public boolean hasNext() {
// TODO implement this method
return false;
}
public Object next() {
// TODO implement this method
return null;
}
public void remove() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}

All you need to do is keep track of the current collection's iterator within the collection of collections. The hasnext() method, which is the tricky part, will then do one of two things: return true if the current iterator has more elements, if not search until we find a collection that has elements. If we exhaust all the collections, return false.
public class Cocl implements Iterator<Object> {
private Collection<Collection<Object>> _collOfColl = null;
private final Iterator<Collection<Object>> coClIterator;
private Iterator<Object> currentColIterator;
public Cocl(Collection<Collection<Object>> collofColl) {
_collOfColl = collofColl;
coClIterator = collofColl.iterator();
if (coClIterator.hasNext()) {
currentColIterator = coClIterator.next().iterator();
}
}
public boolean hasNext() {
if (currentColIterator == null) {
return false;
}
if (!currentColIterator.hasNext()) {
while (coClIterator.hasNext()) {
currentColIterator = coClIterator.next().iterator();
if (currentColIterator.hasNext()) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
public Object next() {
if (hasNext()) {
return currentColIterator.next();
}
throw new NoSuchElementException();
}
public void remove() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Collection<Object> one = Arrays.asList((Object) "A", (Object) "B", (Object) "C");
Collection<Object> two = Arrays.asList((Object) "D", (Object) "E");
Cocl cocl = new Cocl(Arrays.asList(one, two));
while (cocl.hasNext()) {
Object a = cocl.next();
System.out.println(a);
}
}
}

A couple of introductory remarks:
cocI is an odd class name; it should start with a capital letter.
The interface you are supposed to implement doesn't use generics effectively. You should be able to use a data type more specific than Object.
It is good practice to use the #Override annotation.
The solution involves an iterator for the outer collection and an iterator for the inner collection. When the inner iterator runs out of elements, it needs to be replaced with an iterator for the next collection. However, considering that a collection could be empty, the advancement needs to be done in a loop, which I've put in an advanceCollection() helper.
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.NoSuchElementException;
public class cocI<T> implements Iterator<T> {
private Iterator<Collection<T>> outerIterator;
private Iterator<T> innerIterator;
public cocI(Collection<Collection<T>> collofColl) {
this.outerIterator = collofColl.iterator();
advanceCollection();
}
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return this.innerIterator != null && this.innerIterator.hasNext();
}
#Override
public T next() {
if (this.innerIterator == null) {
throw new NoSuchElementException();
}
try {
return this.innerIterator.next();
} finally {
advanceCollection();
}
}
#Override
public void remove() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
private void advanceCollection() {
while ((this.innerIterator == null || !this.innerIterator.hasNext())
&& this.outerIterator.hasNext()) {
this.innerIterator = this.outerIterator.next().iterator();
}
}
}
There is one slightly tricky piece of code I used:
try {
return this.innerIterator.next();
} finally {
advanceCollection();
}
It is roughly equivalent to:
T result = this.innerIterator.next();
advanceCollection();
return result;

How do I write a method which would work on both lists and arrays?

I have a method which looks like this:
void foo (List<String> list, ...) {
...
for (String s : list) { // this is the only place where `list` is used
...
}
...
}
the exact same code would work if I replace List<String> list with String[] list, however, to avoid spaghetti code, I keep the single method, and when I need to call it on an array a, I do it like this: foo(Arrays.asList(a)).
I wonder if this is The Right Way.
Specifically,
What is the overhead of Arrays.asList()?
Is there a way to write a method which would accept both arrays and lists, just like the for loop does?
Thanks!

Arrays.asList() has a small overhead. There is no real way to implement one method for both List and arrays.
But you can do the following:
void foo (List<String> list, ...) {
...
for (String s : list) { // this is the only place where *list* is used
...
}
...
}
void foo (String[] arr, ...) {
if ( arr != null ) {
foo(Arrays.asList(arr),...);
}
}

From the source code of openjdk, Arrays.asList:
public static <T> List<T> asList(T... a) {
return new ArrayList<>(a);
}
furthermore:
ArrayList(E[] array) {
if (array==null)
throw new NullPointerException();
a = array;
}
So basically all that happens in an assignment, so the overhead should be negligible.

The overhead is that it converts an array to a list--how it does so would be implementation-dependent, it only needs to fulfill the contract.
IMO you should write two methods if you're concerned about the potential runtime overhead: that is the nature of Java; methods have type signatures, and they must be obeyed.

Do avoid this I just use and allow Lists, Sets and Maps (like Joshua Bloch told us). There is no way to merge both "collection types".
An alternative is to use guava (Iterators/Iteratables). So you can iterarte over your collections without a deep copy of them.

Good question.
This is a very common case, and is often dealt with by writing two separate methods. However code duplication is really a bad idea, and whenever you find yourself duplicating code, you should start looking for opportunities to factor your code better. (As you are doing right now!)
Now if you look into the source of java.util.Arrays, you will notice that Arrays.asList retruns an instance of a private inner class Arrays.ArrayList which is just a thin wrapper over plain arrays, and delegates all relevant method calls to it. (This is known as a projection or view of a data structure.) Therefore the overhead incurred is insignificant (unless you are striving to extract every last bit of performance), and in my opinion, you should go ahead and use this method without worrying about performance.
The solution I personally use is as follows.
I have a class named RichIterable in my personal utils. As the name indicates the class wraps over Iterable and provides some additional useful methods not already present. The class also has a factory method that creates an RichIterable from an array. Here is the class definition.
public class RichIterable<A> implements Iterable<A> {
private Iterable<A> xs;
private RichIterable(Iterable<A> xs) {
this.xs = xs;
}
public static <A> RichIterable<A> from(Iterable<A> xs) {
if (xs instanceof RichIterable) {
return (RichIterable<A>) xs;
} else {
return new RichIterable<A>(xs);
}
}
public static <A> RichIterable<A> from(final Enumeration<A> xs) {
Iterable<A> iterable = new Iterable<A>() {
#Override
public Iterator<A> iterator() {
return new Iterator<A>() {
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return xs.hasMoreElements();
}
#Override
public A next() {
return xs.nextElement();
}
#Override
public void remove() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
"Cannot remove an element from an enumeration.");
}
};
}
};
return RichIterable.from(iterable);
}
public static <A> RichIterable<A> from(final A[] xs) {
Iterable<A> iterable = new Iterable<A>() {
#Override
public Iterator<A> iterator() {
return new Iterator<A>() {
private int i = 0;
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return i < xs.length;
}
#Override
public A next() {
A x = xs[i];
i++;
return x;
}
#Override
public void remove() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
"Cannot remove an element from an array.");
}
};
}
};
return RichIterable.from(iterable);
}
public boolean isEmpty() {
if (xs instanceof Collection) {
return ((Collection) xs).isEmpty();
}
for (A x : xs) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
public int size() {
if (xs instanceof Collection) {
return ((Collection) xs).size();
}
int size = 0;
for (A x : xs) {
size++;
}
return size;
}
public ArrayList<A> toArrayList() {
ArrayList<A> ys = new ArrayList<A>();
for (A x : xs) {
ys.add(x);
}
return ys;
}
public <B> RichIterable<B> map(F1<A, B> f) {
List<B> ys = new ArrayList<B>();
for (A x : xs) {
ys.add(f.apply(x));
}
return RichIterable.from(ys);
}
public RichIterable<A> filter(F1<A, Boolean> pred) {
List<A> ys = new ArrayList<A>();
Arrays.asList();
for (A x : xs) {
if (pred.apply(x)) {
ys.add(x);
}
}
return RichIterable.from(ys);
}
public boolean exists(F1<A, Boolean> pred) {
for (A x : xs) {
if (pred.apply(x)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
public boolean forall(F1<A, Boolean> pred) {
for (A x : xs) {
if (!pred.apply(x)) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public Maybe<A> find(F1<A, Boolean> pred) {
for (A x : xs) {
if (pred.apply(x)) {
return Just.of(x);
}
}
return Nothing.value();
}
public String mkString(String beg, String sep, String end) {
Iterator<A> i = xs.iterator();
if (!i.hasNext()) {
return beg + end;
}
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.append(beg);
while (true) {
A e = i.next();
sb.append(e.toString());
if (!i.hasNext()) {
return sb.append(end).toString();
}
sb.append(sep);
}
}
public String mkString(String sep) {
return mkString("", sep, "");
}
public String mkString() {
return this.mkString(", ");
}
public Iterable<A> getRaw() {
return xs;
}
#Override
public Iterator<A> iterator() {
return xs.iterator();
}
}

How to obtain index of a given LinkedHashSet element without iteration?

Is it even possible?
Say you have
private Set<String> names = new LinkedHashSet<String>();
and Strings are "Mike", "John", "Karen".
Is it possible to get "1" in return to "what's the index of "John" without iteration?
The following works fine .. with this question i wonder if there is a better way
for (String s : names) {
++i;
if (s.equals(someRandomInputString)) {
break;
}
}

The Set interface doesn't have something like as an indexOf() method. You'd really need to iterate over it or to use the List interface instead which offers an indexOf() method.
If you would like to, converting Set to List is pretty trivial, it should be a matter of passing the Set through the constructor of the List implementation. E.g.
List<String> nameList = new ArrayList<String>(nameSet);
// ...

I don't believe so, but you could create a LinkedHashSetWithIndex wrapper class that would do the iteration for you, or keep a separate table with the indexes of each entry, if the performance decrease is acceptable for your use case.

It is generally not possible for a Set to return the index because it's not necessarily well defined for the particular Set implementation. For example it says in the HashSet documentation
It makes no guarantees as to the iteration order of the set; in particular, it does not guarantee that the order will remain constant over time.
So you shouldn't say the type is Set when what you actually expect is a Set implementing som order.

Here is an implementation that does insertions, removals, retainings, backed by an arraylist to achieve o(1) on get(index).
/**
* #Author Mo. Joseph
*
* Allows you to call get with o(1) instead of o(n) to get an instance by index
*/
public static final class $IndexLinkedHashSet<E> extends LinkedHashSet<E> {
private final ArrayList<E> list = new ArrayList<>();
public $IndexLinkedHashSet(int initialCapacity, float loadFactor) {
super(initialCapacity, loadFactor);
}
public $IndexLinkedHashSet() {
super();
}
public $IndexLinkedHashSet(int initialCapacity) {
super(initialCapacity);
}
public $IndexLinkedHashSet(Collection<? extends E> c) {
super(c);
}
#Override
public synchronized boolean add(E e) {
if ( super.add(e) ) {
return list.add(e);
}
return false;
}
#Override
public synchronized boolean remove(Object o) {
if ( super.remove(o) ) {
return list.remove(o);
}
return false;
}
#Override
public synchronized void clear() {
super.clear();
list.clear();
}
public synchronized E get(int index) {
return list.get(index);
}
#Override
public synchronized boolean removeAll(Collection<?> c) {
if ( super.removeAll(c) ) {
return list.removeAll(c);
}
return true;
}
#Override
public synchronized boolean retainAll(Collection<?> c) {
if ( super.retainAll(c) ) {
return list.retainAll(c);
}
return false;
}
/**
* Copied from super class
*/
#Override
public synchronized boolean addAll(Collection<? extends E> c) {
boolean modified = false;
for (E e : c)
if (add(e))
modified = true;
return modified;
}
}
To test it:
public static void main(String[] args) {
$IndexLinkedHashSet<String> abc = new $IndexLinkedHashSet<String>();
abc.add("8");
abc.add("8");
abc.add("8");
abc.add("2");
abc.add("3");
abc.add("4");
abc.add("1");
abc.add("5");
abc.add("8");
System.out.println("Size: " + abc.size());
int i = 0;
while ( i < abc.size()) {
System.out.println( abc.get(i) );
i++;
}
abc.remove("8");
abc.remove("5");
System.out.println("Size: " + abc.size());
i = 0;
while ( i < abc.size()) {
System.out.println( abc.get(i) );
i++;
}
abc.clear();
System.out.println("Size: " + abc.size());
i = 0;
while ( i < abc.size()) {
System.out.println( abc.get(i) );
i++;
}
}
Which outputs:
Size: 6
8
2
3
4
1
5
Size: 4
2
3
4
1
Size: 0
Ofcourse remove, removeAll, retainAll now has the same or worse performance as ArrayList. But I do not use them and so I am ok with that.
Enjoy!
EDIT:
Here is another implementation, which does not extend LinkedHashSet because that's redundant. Instead it uses a HashSet and an ArrayList.
/**
* #Author Mo. Joseph
*
* Allows you to call get with o(1) instead of o(n) to get an instance by index
*/
public static final class $IndexLinkedHashSet<E> implements Set<E> {
private final ArrayList<E> list = new ArrayList<>( );
private final HashSet<E> set = new HashSet<> ( );
public synchronized boolean add(E e) {
if ( set.add(e) ) {
return list.add(e);
}
return false;
}
public synchronized boolean remove(Object o) {
if ( set.remove(o) ) {
return list.remove(o);
}
return false;
}
#Override
public boolean containsAll(Collection<?> c) {
return set.containsAll(c);
}
public synchronized void clear() {
set.clear();
list.clear();
}
public synchronized E get(int index) {
return list.get(index);
}
public synchronized boolean removeAll(Collection<?> c) {
if ( set.removeAll(c) ) {
return list.removeAll(c);
}
return true;
}
public synchronized boolean retainAll(Collection<?> c) {
if ( set.retainAll(c) ) {
return list.retainAll(c);
}
return false;
}
public synchronized boolean addAll(Collection<? extends E> c) {
boolean modified = false;
for (E e : c)
if (add(e))
modified = true;
return modified;
}
#Override
public synchronized int size() {
return set.size();
}
#Override
public synchronized boolean isEmpty() {
return set.isEmpty();
}
#Override
public synchronized boolean contains(Object o) {
return set.contains(o);
}
#Override
public synchronized Iterator<E> iterator() {
return list.iterator();
}
#Override
public synchronized Object[] toArray() {
return list.toArray();
}
#Override
public synchronized <T> T[] toArray(T[] a) {
return list.toArray(a);
}
}
Now you have two implementations, I would prefer the second one.

Although not as efficient for the machine, this achieves it in one line:
int index = new ArrayList<String>(names).indexOf("John");

A better way there is not, only a single lined one (which makes use of the iterator, too but implicitly):
new ArrayList(names).get(0)

You can convert your Set to List then you can do any indexing operations.
Example: need to crop Set list to 5 items.
Set<String> listAsLinkedHashSet = new LinkedHashSet<>();
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("1");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("2");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("3");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("4");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("1");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("2");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("5");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("7");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("9");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("8");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("1");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("10");
listAsLinkedHashSet.add("11");
List<String> listAsArrayList = new ArrayList<>(listAsLinkedHashSet);
//crop list to 5 elements
if (listAsArrayList.size() > 5) {
for (int i = 5; i < listAsArrayList.size(); i++) {
listAsArrayList.remove(i);
i--;
}
}
listAsLinkedHashSet.clear();
listAsLinkedHashSet.addAll(listAsArrayList);