Hi all I have an immutable array implementation which looks like this:
public static final class FixedArray<T> {
private final T[] array;
public final int Length;
#SafeVarargs
public FixedArray(T... args) {
array = args;
Length = args.length;
}
public T Get(int index) {
return array[index];
}
}
public static final class FixedIntArray {
private final int[] array;
public final int Length;
public FixedIntArray(int... args) {
array = args;
Length = args.length;
}
public int Get(int index) {
return array[index];
}
}
public static final class FixedLongArray {
private final long[] array;
public final int Length;
public FixedLongArray(long... args) {
array = args;
Length = args.length;
}
public long Get(int index) {
return array[index];
}
}
Initially I'd thought that it is guaranteed to be thread-safe. But after reading the discussion regarding immutable arrays and the Java Memory Model, I believe alone, I can't be sure.
I've not used a defensive copy, with the contract that the calling code "does the right thing" (and as usual, if it doesn't follow the contract, the behavior is undefined).
The calling method looks like this:
public static void main(String args[]) {
int[] ints = new int[10000];
FixedIntArray fixed_ints = new FixedIntArray(ints);
SendToThreadA(fixed_ints);
SendToThreadB(fixed_ints);
SendToThreadC(fixed_ints);
SendToThreadD(fixed_ints);
//caller (which is this method) does the right thing, ints goes out of scope without anyone trying to modify it.
}
I was wondering is the code above guaranteed to be thread-safe?
As we don't know what happens to the array (and its values) to which you store a reference, I think your classes would be much safer if the constuctors create a copy of the argument array and set the internal final reference to the copied array.
It's OK. You can require caller to "hand-off" the array to you. Caller can clone one if necessary.
Memory write is usually the most expensive thing in a program (sans external IO).
Not everybody is stupid. You only need to be defensive enough to protect your target user base.
Given that you can pass an array to a varargs method, you'd need to make a copy of the constructor input to ensure it can't be modified outside the class. Having done that, as long as you don't assign the final field until after all the values are assigned in the copy array, you should be fine because the assignment to the final field is guaranteed to happen before any read of that field from another thread.
So a constructor would look like:
array = Arrays.copyOf(args, args.length);
Orrrr you could just use a Guava ImmutableList and get a lot more power.
I'm not sure it's meaningful to examine it for thread-safety, because it's missing even a more basic level of safety. Consider this method:
public static void main(final String... args)
{
final int[] arr = new int[] { 3, 3, 3 };
final FixedIntArray threeThrees = new FixedIntArray(arr);
System.out.println(threeThrees.Get(0)); // prints "3"
System.out.println(threeThrees.Get(1)); // prints "3"
System.out.println(threeThrees.Get(2)); // prints "3"
arr[0] = arr[1] = arr[2] = 4;
System.out.println(threeThrees.Get(0)); // prints "4"
System.out.println(threeThrees.Get(1)); // prints "4"
System.out.println(threeThrees.Get(2)); // prints "4"
}
The problem is that, when a method that takes int... (or Object... or long... or anything else), it can receive either an array that's implicitly constructed by the compiler (as would happen if you typed new FixedIntArray(3,3,3)), or an array that's explicitly passed in by the calling code (as I did above). In the latter case, the calling code can continue to modify the array that it passed in!
Related
I would like following effect -> I have object of class FluidArray which will be an array, but depending on the input it will be either int array or String array:
FluidArray XXX = new FluidArray;
XXX.YYY[] might be either String or int
In this case variable YYY of class XXX might be int array or String
Can I somehow declare variable type depending on some choice?
public class FluidArray
{
VarType YYY;
public static void FluidArray(int a)
{
double[] YYY = new double[15];
}
public static void FluidArray(String a)
{
String[] YYY = new String[15];
}
}
Let's say I want to make a sort method.
I input there unsorted array.
I take out sorted array.
The catch is I might want to sort String, double or int array and I don't want to write 3 sorting methods - I thought that my sorting method might work on some defined object and this object will be either String, double int depending on my choice.
I am trying to use Generic type, I got so far sth. like this:
public class test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
FluidArray<Integer> arrTest = new FluidArray<>();
arrTest.arr[1]=2;
arrTest.arr[2]=3;
arrTest.arr[3]=4;
}
public static class FluidArray<arrType>
{
public arrType[] arr = (arrType[])new Object[15];
}
}
I don't understand, why I can't get access to the array, compiler ends when inserting first value.
Read up on Generics. Thats what they are supposed to do
I am aware that the idea of the keyword private is to enable encapsulation. However, I got confused when I realized that I can modify an Array after retrieving it with a getter, which surprised me. The same didn't work for the plain integer, although I thought java treats all variables as objects.
The example:
public class PrivContainer {
private int[] myIntArray;
private int myInt;
PrivContainer(){
myIntArray=new int[1];
myIntArray[0]=3;
myInt=22;
}
public int[] getIntArray(){
return myIntArray;
}
public int getInt(){
return myInt;
}
public void printInt(){
System.out.println(myIntArray[0]);
System.out.println(myInt);
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args){
PrivContainer pc=new PrivContainer();
int[] r=pc.getIntArray();
int q=pc.getInt();
r[0]=5;
q=33;
pc.printInt();
}
}
The Output of printInt() is 5,22
This means that main method could change the entries of the private array but not of the private int.
Could someone explain this phenomena to me?
An array is a mutable Object. Therefore, if you have a reference to that array, you can modify its contents. You can't do the same with primitive members of a class (such as int) and with references to immutable class instances (such as String and Integer).
Your assignment :
q=33;
Would be similar to :
r = new int [5];
Both of those assignments cause the variables to contain new values, but they don't affect the state of the PrivContainer instance from which the original values of those variables were assigned.
Nothing seems strange here. What happen basically as follow.
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args){
PrivContainer pc=new PrivContainer(); <-- create new `PrivContiner` object which also initialised the private variables
int[] r=pc.getIntArray(); <-- you get the "object" integer array here and assign r to refer to that object
int q=pc.getInt(); <-- you get the "primitive" integer here and assign q to refer the myInt variable here.
r[0]=5; <-- you assign the first value of the array 5. Note that the object reference is still the same here
q=33; <-- you assign the variable q to 33. Note that, this mean, the variable q refer to another primitive here (which is 33)
pc.printInt(); <-- print the content of the object here.
}
}
When you invoke the printInt function. the output will be 5 and 22 as the new integer (33) is assigned to q and its scope is only within the main function.
While you return an array from a getter you return the reference of that object. Since you have the reference you can change its elements. If you want to avoid this behavior you will have to return the clone of your array in that case you wont be able to change the elements of your array
public class Main {
public static void main(String... args) {
Arr arr = new Arr();
int[] y = arr.getX();
y[1] = 5;
System.out.println(arr.getX()[1]);
}
}
class Arr {
private int[] x = {1, 2, 3};
public int[] getX() {
return x.clone();
}
}
Try this code and remove the clone method, like this
class Arr {
private int[] x = {1, 2, 3};
public int[] getX() {
return x;
}
}
Now execute the main method, you will observe that changing value of y will change the value of array x as well.
Why does this work, displaying array in sorted order?:
Integer[] array={7,5,9,3,6,0,2,4};
MergeSort.mergeSort(array,0,7);
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(array));
Specifically, why does passing array to a public static void method mergeSort end up modifying the array itself? I thought that Java protected from this. For example this code:
public static void main(String[] args){
int c=2;
change(c);
System.out.print(c);
}
public static void change(int c){
c=4;
}
returns 2 instead of 4. I am confused why Java allows you to modify an array passed as a parameter, but not an int
Because Java is pass by value, and when you pass an Object (and array is an Object) you pass the value of the reference to the Object. In contrast, a primitive has no reference so you just pass the value.
Edit
Similarly, you could have used the built in Arrays.sort() method to sort your array. Java arrays are not primitive types. In Java, the primitive wrapper types are immutable (like String). Consider,
private static void change(String in) {
in = in + " World"; // <-- modifies in here, can't change caller's reference.
}
private static void change(StringBuilder in) {
in.append(" World"); // <-- uses reference from caller.
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String str = "Hello";
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(str);
change(str);
change(sb);
System.out.println("one: " + str);
System.out.println("two: " + sb);
}
When using an array, taken as a parameter or not, consider that arr[i] is a pointer to some location of the memory. Then, when receiving an array as a parameter, you have a new reference pointing to the same array object. That means that in your method, instructions such as :
myParameterArray = new int[5];
won't modify the input array, because you are just changing the value of a reference, not the value pointed by it. Nevertheless, instructions such as :
myParameterArray[i] = 5;
will directly modify your input array. That is how methods like Arrays.sort work.
I am having a little trouble understanding the concept of final in Java.
I have a class that follows:
public class MyClass
{
private int[][] myArray; // intended to be changed
private final int[][] MYARRAY_ORIGINAL; // intended to be unchangable
public MyClass(int[][] array)
{
myArray = array;
MYARRAY_ORIGINAL = array;
}
}
I was under the understanding that final would make MYARRAY_ORIGINAL read only. But I have tried editing myArray, and it edits MYARRAY_ORIGINAL as well. My question is, in this context, what exactly does final do? And for extra credit, how can I copy the array passed through the constructor into MYARRAY_ORIGINAL so that I can have 2 arrays, one to edit, and one that will remain preserved?
Your final MYARRAY_ORIGINAL is indeed read only: you can't assign a new value to the MYARRAY_ORIGINAL reference in other side than class constructor or attribute declaration:
public void someMethod() {
//it won't compile
MYARRAY_ORIGINAL = new int[X][];
}
The values inside the array are not final. Those values can change anytime in the code.
public void anotherMethod() {
MYARRAY_ORIGINAL[0][0] = 25;
//later in the code...
MYARRAY_ORIGINAL[0][0] = 30; //it works!
}
If you indeed need a List of final elements, in other words, a List whose elements can't be modified, you can use Collections.unmodifiableList:
List<Integer> items = Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(0,1,2,3));
The last piece of code was taken from here: Immutable array in Java
In case of Objects, final makes reference can't be changed, but object state can be changed.
That is the reason why you are able to change values of final MYARRAY_ORIGINAL
MYARRAY_ORIGINAL is indeed read only variable. Your array reference can not be assigned a new value nor for their length of the arrays can be changed. A final variables initialization can be deferred till the constructors is called. If one tries to modify the reference of the final variable, compiler will throw an error message. But what is possible is, one can edit the elements of the MYARRAY_ORIGINAL and of the myArray i.e one can change the state of the object assigned to a final variable. For example
Class A {
final int[] array;
public A() {
array = new int[10] // deferred initialization of a final variable
array[0] = 10;
}
public void method() {
array[0] = 3; // it is allowed
array = new int[20] // not allowed and compiler will throw an error
}
}
To understand more on final please take a look at Java Language Specification on final variable.
Final does not mean 'read-only' per se, but more so "safe publication' for other threads than the one to which it is defined. Another aim of 'final' is that it ensures the latest object available in a multi-thread environment.
Secondly, if you define something as "final", for example:
private final int[][] MYARRAY_ORIGINAL;
The reference is "final", but not the object itself. A much better way to understand it would be this:
public static final List myList = new ArrayList();
Now I can access myList from any other threads - I can modify it (add to it); but I cannot
(a) Declare it again - myList = new ArrayList();
(b) Assign it another list - myList = anotherList;
The context for final I would see best, in a multiple-thread scenario.
Bonus: to answer your question, you cannot make a 'readonly' array, you will have to manage that yourself (as final, only maintains 'read-only' to reference not object)
You can use the method System.arraycopy to make a copy of the array as follows -
int[][] source = {{1,2},{3,4}};
int[][] copy = new int[source.length][];
System.arraycopy(source, 0, copy, 0, source.length);
Also, you some problem with your code regarding what you are trying to do. If you look at the constructor
public MyClass(int[][] array) { //something else passes the array
myArray = array;
MYARRAY_ORIGINAL = array; // you are just keeping a reference to it can be modified from outside
}
If you really want nobody to modify the values in that array MYARRAY_ORIGINAL, you should make a copy of the source array that comes comes from outside.
public MyClass(int[][] array) {
myArray = array; //make a copy here also if you don't want to edit the argument array
MYARRAY_ORIGINAL = new int[array.length][];
System.arraycopy(array, 0, MYARRAY_ORIGINAL, 0, array.length);
}
Now you shouldn't have to worry about the array's being modified from outside.
I'm doing a task for a course in Java programming and I'm not sure how the following thing is working? The method below takes the value from an array and a integer. The integer should be added to the array and then be used outside the method in other methods and so on, but how could this work when the method has no return for the new content of the array? There is a void in the method? Have I missed something? Preciate some help? Is there something about pointers?
public static void makeTransaction(int[] trans, int amount);
Arrays in Java are objects. If you modify the trans array inside the method, the changes will be reflected outside of it1. Eg:
public static void modify(int[] arr)
{
arr[0] = 10;
}
public static void main(...)
{
int x = {1, 2, 3};
System.out.println(x[0]); // prints 1
modify(x);
System.out.println(x[0]); // now it prints 10
}
Note that native arrays can't be dynamically resized in Java. You will have to use something like ArrayList if you need to do that. Alternatively you can change the return type to int[] and return a new array with the new element "appended" to the old array:
public static int[] makeTransaction(int[] trans, int amount)
{
int[] new_trans = Arrays.copyOf(trans, trans.length + 1);
new_trans[trans.length] = amount;
return new_trans;
}
1 It is also worth noting that as objects, array references are passed by value, so the following code has no effect whatsoever outside of the method:
public void no_change(int[] arr)
{
arr = new int[arr.length];
}
You can't add anything to an array. Java arrays have a fixed length. So indeed, what you want to do is impossible. You might make the method return an int[] array, but it would be a whole new array, containing all the elements of the initial one + the amount passed as argument.
If you want to add something to an array-like structure, use an ArrayList<Integer>.
Do you have to keep the method signature as is?
Also, can you be a bit more specific. When you say "the integer should be added to the array", are you referring to the amount argument? If so, then how is that amount added? Do we place it somewhere in the array or is it placed at the end, thus extending the array's length?
As far as pointers go, Java's pointers are implicit, so if you don't have a strong enough knowledge of the language, then it might not be so clear to you. Anyways, I believe that Java methods usually will pass objects by reference, and primitives by value. But, even that isn't entirely true. If you were to assign your object argument to new object, when the method terminates, the variable that you passed to the method is the same after the method executed as it was before. But, if you were to change the argument's member attributes, then when the method terminated those attributes values will be the same as they were inside of the method.
Anyways, back to your question, I believe that will work because an array is an object. So, if you were to do the following:
public static void makeTransaction(int[] trans, int amount)
{
trans[0] = amount;
}
// static int i;
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int[] trans = {0,1,3};
makeTransaction(trans, 10);
for(int i = 0; i<trans.length; i++)
{
System.out.println(trans[i]);
}
}
The output of the array will be:
10
1
3
But, watch this. What if I decided to implement makeTransaction like so:
public static void makeTransaction(int[] trans, int amount)
{
trans[0] = amount;
trans = new int[3];
}
What do you think that the output will be? Will it be set to all zero's or will be the same as it was before? The answer is that the output will be the same as it was before. This ties in to what I was saying earlier.
I might've assigned that pointer to a new object in memory, but your copy of the pointer inside of the main method remains the same. It still points to the same place in memory as it did before. When the makeTransaction method terminates, the new int[3] object that I created inside of it is available for garbage collection. The original array remains intact. So, when people say that Java passes objects by reference, it's really more like passing objects' references by value.