I've been struggling with this for a while and have yet to find an answer. As a result, my brain is somewhat muddled, so pardon me if I make a dumb mistake.
I'm trying to implement a typed INI parser, that will parse this kind of file:
[section1]
<int>intkey=0
<float>floatkey=0.0
<str>stringkey=test
[section2]
<float>x=1.0
<float>y=1.0
<float>z=0.0
In doing so, I have a central class named Config, which handles the basic reading and writing operations. One of the methods of Config is called get(String section, String key), which ideally would return a value appropriate for the requested section-key pair, like so:
Config cfg = new Config("test.ini");
cfg.get("section2", "x"); // 1.0, not "1.0" or some Object that technically represents the float
cfg.get("section1", "intkey"); // 0
cfg.get("section1", "strkey"); // "test"
I'm currently using an enum to handle the conversion of the String to various types, with an abstract method overridden by the different types:
enum Type
{
INTEGER ("int") {
public Object parse(String value) {
try
{
return Integer.parseInt(value);
} catch (NumberFormatException e)
{
return null;
}
}
},
FLOAT ("float") {
public Object parse(String value) {
try
{
return Float.parseFloat(value);
} catch (NumberFormatException e)
{
return null;
}
}
},
STRING ("str") {
public Object parse(String value) {
return value;
}
};
public final String name;
Type(String name)
{
this.name = name;
}
private static HashMap<String, Type> configMap = generateConfigMap();
private static HashMap<String, Type> generateConfigMap()
{
HashMap<String, Type> map = new HashMap<String, Type>();
for (Type type : Type.values())
map.put(type.name, type);
return map;
}
public static Type get(String name)
{
return configMap.get(name);
}
abstract public Object parse(String value);
}
Unfortunately, parse(String value) returns an Object, and when passed out of Config, requires a cast or similar, and ideally this would be self-contained.
If I'm going about this completely wrong and there's a more flexible or simple way to code it, please let me know. I'm open to suggestions. Though I would like to know if there's a way to do this. Maybe with generics...?
Note: I know I'm missing imports and the like. That's not why I'm posting here.
Here's the thing. If the code that calls config.get() doesn't know what type to expect, you can't possibly return anything other than Object since the calling code doesn't know what to expect. Of course you'll have to cast.
Now, if you wanted to design Config in a way that the caller did know what type it was asking for, than that becomes a bit easier. The easiest approach then is to do something like this:
public class Config {
public int getInt(String a, String b) {
return ((Integer)get(a, b)).intValue();
}
}
But until the caller knows what to expect, you really gain nothing from avoiding casts.
If you want to return a a type of object depending on what you get you can do this:
public <T extends MyObject> T myMethod(Class<T> type) {
return type.cast(myObj);
}
Related
Problem
I don't know the best way to model my data. I'm worried my current approach has gotten overly complex, and I want to correct it now before I base any more code off it.
Data to be Modeled
I have data sets that consist of 50+ different data items. Each item consists of:
a unique identifier int
a label String.
validation criteria (min, max, legal characters, etc...).
a value Float, Long, Integer, String, or Date.
The label and validation criteria for each item is the same in every data set. Only the values are dynamic. Order is not important.
Needed Usage Examples
Add data to the data set
dataSet.put(itemIdentifier, value);
Traverse and validate all non-null values in the data set
for (DataItem item : dataSet.values()) {
boolean valid = item.validate();
if (valid) {...}
}
Show the specified items in the given data sets
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
Implementation Attempt
My current implementation has an abstract Key class as the "key" to a map. Each type subclasses for its own validation needs. Then, inside the DataSet class, I have public static keys for each item.
abstract public class Key {
public int mId;
public String mLabel;
public Key(int id, String label) {...}
abstract public boolean validate(Object Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key {
private int mMin, mMax;
public Key(int id, String label, int min, int max) {...}
public boolean validate(Object Value) {...}
}
// one for each type
...
public class DataSet {
public static Key ITEM_A = new FloatKey(1, "item A", 0, 100);
public static Key ITEM_B = new DateKey(2, "item B", "January 1, 1990");
// ~50 more of these
private Map<Key, Object> mMap;
public void put(int itemId, Object value) {...}
public Set<Object> values() {...};
...
}
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat). I also find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set because I need to call subclass-only methods in some situations.
Edits for further clarification
Data items and their validation criteria will require occasional changes and so maintenance should be relatively easy / painless.
Although I could use the Key objects themselves as keys into the map, I will sometimes need to put these keys in a Bundle (part of the android API). I would rather use the label or id (in case labels are the same) to avoid making my Key class Parcelable.
What about this approach:
Create this interface:
interface Validable {
boolean isValid();
}
Then, all data items inherit the following class and implicitly the interface ::
abstract class DataItem implements Validable {
public DataItem(int id, String label, int min, int max) {
}
}
Configure each specific instance of DataItem via constructor parameters, passing the common and the distinct values:
class FloatItem extends DataItem {
public FloatItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Float value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
// set the Float value here
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
class DateItem extends DataItem {
public DateItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Date value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
The client code would assemble the objects like this::
List<Validable> items = Lists.<Validable>newArrayList(new FloatItem(0, "", 0, 0, Float.NaN),
new DateItem(0, "", 0, 0, new Date()));
(note the usage of Google Guava)
Calling code only needs to do this::
for (Validable validable : items) {
System.out.println(validable.isValid());
}
Please note that this approach requires you to first create 'target' objects, and then ask the question if they are valid. In other words, you are passing the valid-able parameters via constructor and then, you ask the object if it is valid. The object itself will answer the question using the validation criteria inside it...
I hope I understood your problem correctly.
I don't quite understand your goals with the design, so maybe not all of this is correct or directly useful to you, but it's some ideas to play with.
First I'd point out that there are lots of fields in the code you've shown that should be marked final. For example, Key.mId, Key.mLabel, FloatKey.mMin, FloatKey.mMax, all the DataSet.ITEM_X, and DataSet.mMap. Marking them final (1) conveys the intended behavior better, (2) prevents accidents where something like a Key's mId changes, and (3) might have marginal performance benefits.
I wonder why you need the numeric ID for each key/field? If they're required for interfacing with some external application or storage format which already defines those IDs, that makes sense, but if it's only for internal things like this method:
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
then that could be more meaningfully implemented using a list of String labels or Key objects, instead of the numeric IDs. Likewise, DataSet.put could possibly use the Key or label instead of the ID.
I find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set
Making Key generic can eliminate some casts. (Well, they will still be present in the bytecode, but not in the source because the compiler will take care of it.) E.g.,
abstract public class Key<T> {
...
abstract public boolean validate(T Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key<Float> {
...
public boolean validate(Float value) { ... }
}
In the validate method, you thus avoid the need to cast value.
Also, I'm guessing you currently have a method on class DataSet like this:
public Object get(int itemId) { ... }
If you use the Key instead of numeric ID to retrieve values, and make the method generic, you'll often be able to avoid the need for callers to cast the return value (though the cast is still present inside the get method):
public <T> T get(Key<T> key) { ... }
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat).
You could make a class for the value instead of the key. E.g.,
abstract public class Value<T> {
public final int id;
public final String label;
protected Value(int id, String label) {
this.id = id;
this.label = label;
}
abstract public T get();
abstract public void set(T value);
}
public class FloatValue extends Value<Float> {
private final float min, max;
private float value;
public FloatValue(int id, String label, float min, float max, float value) {
super(id, label);
this.min = min;
this.max = max;
set(value);
}
public Float get() { return value; }
public void set(Float value) {
if (value < min | value > max) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
this.value = value;
}
}
public class DataSet {
public final FloatValue itemA = new FloatValue(1, "item A", 0, 100, 0);
...
}
That solves the stated problem, and also eliminates the map lookup previously required on every get/set of a value. However it has the side effect of duplicating the storage for the labels and numeric IDs, as the Value classes are not static fields any more.
In this scenario, to access DataSet values by label (or ID?), you can use reflection to build a map. In class DataSet:
private final Map<String, Value<?>> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (Value.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
Value<?> v;
try {
v = (Value<?>)f.get(this);
} catch (IllegalAccessException | IllegalArgumentException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
labelMap.put(v.label, v);
}
}
}
There's a subtlety here: if you subclass DataSet to represent different types of data, then the Value fields of the subclasses will not have been initialized yet at the time DataSet's initializer builds the map. So if you create subclasses of DataSet, you might need a protected init() method to be called from subclass constructors, to tell it to (re)build the map, which is a bit ugly but it would work.
You can re-use this map to provide convenient iteration of a DataSet's values:
public Collection<Value<?>> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
A final idea: if you're using reflection anyway, it might be possible to use ordinary fields for the values, with annotation interfaces to implement their behavior.
import java.lang.annotation.*;
import java.lang.reflect.*;
public class DataSet {
#Label("item A") #ValidateFloat(min=0, max=100) public float itemA;
#Label("item B") public String itemB;
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface Label {
String value();
}
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface ValidateFloat {
float min();
float max();
}
public final class Value {
public final String label;
private final Field field;
protected Value(String label, Field field) {
this.label = label;
this.field = field;
}
public Object get() {
try {
return field.get(DataSet.this);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void set(Object value) {
try {
field.set(DataSet.this, value);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void validate() {
Object value = get();
// Test for presence of each validation rule and implement its logic.
// Ugly but not sure how best to improve this...
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ValidateFloat.class)) {
float floatValue = (float)value;
ValidateFloat rule = field.getAnnotation(ValidateFloat.class);
if (floatValue < rule.min() || floatValue > rule.max()) {
//throw new Whatever();
}
}
//if (field.isAnnotationPresent(...)) {
// ...
//}
}
}
private final Map<String, Value> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (f.isAnnotationPresent(Label.class)) {
Value value = new Value(f.getAnnotation(Label.class).value(), f);
labelMap.put(value.label, value);
}
}
}
public Collection<Value> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
}
This approach has different tradeoffs. Code that knows exactly what field it wants can access it directly. E.g., dataSet.itemA instead of dataSet.get(DataSet.ITEM_A). Code that needs to iterate multiple fields does so via the Value wrapper (would Property be a better class name? Or Item?), which encapsulates the ugliness of the field reflection code.
I also put the validation logic into the annotations. If there are lots of fields with very simple numeric limits, that works well. If it's too complex for that you'd be better off with a DataSet.validate method that accesses the fields directly. E.g,
public void validate() {
if (itemC < 10 || itemC > itemD) ...
}
Okay, one more idea:
public class DataSet {
public float itemA;
public String itemB;
public static abstract class Value<T> {
public final String label;
protected Value(String label) {
this.label = label;
}
public abstract T get();
public abstract void set(T value);
}
public Value<?>[] values() {
return new Value[] {
new Value<Float>("itemA") {
public Float get() {
return itemA;
}
public void set(Float value) {
itemA = value;
}
},
new Value<String>("itemB") {
public String get() {
return itemB;
}
public void set(String value) {
itemB = value;
}
},
};
}
}
This is simple (no annotations or reflection) but it's repetitive. Since you have "50+" fields, the repetitiveness is probably not ideal as it's easy when copy-pasting to slip up at some point, forgetting to replace itemX = value with itemY = value, but if you only need to write it once it might be acceptable. Validation code could go either on the Value class or the DataSet class.
I could workaround this problem but I cannot understand it, so I am asking for some explanation (and maybe a better question title as well).
Please consider this:
public class TBGService {
// TBGObject is an abstract base class which is extended by model classes
public <T> T doGet(TBGObject model) throws TBGServiceException {
String uri = model.buildUrl(repository) + model.getObjectKey();
GetMethod method = new GetMethod(uri);
T returned = execute(method, credentials, model.getClass());
return returned;
}
}
and this:
public enum TBGTaskAttributes {
private TBGTaskAttributes(String id, String type, String label, Object... flags) {
builder = new TaskAttributeBuilder();
builder.withId(id).withLabel(label);
for (Object flag : flags) {
processFlag(flag);
}
}
public abstract String getValueFromIssue(TBGIssue issue);
public abstract void setValueInIssue(TBGIssue issue, String value);
}
when I write this code to define an enum item:
PROJECT(TaskAttribute.PRODUCT, TaskAttribute.TYPE_SINGLE_SELECT, "Project", new OptionProvider() {
#Override
public Set<Entry<String, String>> getOptions(TaskRepository repository) {
try {
List<TBGProject> list = TBGService.get(repository)
.doGet(new TBGProjects()).getProjects();
[...]
return map.entrySet();
} catch (TBGServiceException e) { [...] }
return null;
}
}) {
#Override
public String getValueFromIssue(TBGIssue issue) {
return issue.getProjectKey();
}
#Override
public void setValueInIssue(TBGIssue issue, String value) {
issue.setProjectKey(value);
}
},
[... other items ...]
I get compiler error (also eclipse auto-completion does not work):
The method getProjects() is undefined for the type Object
and if I hover the doGet method, eclipse show it as defined like:
<Object> Object TBGService.doGet(TBGObject model)
Elsewhere, hovering shows the signature correctly as:
<TBGProjects> TBGProjects TBGService.doGet(TBGObject model)
when called with parameter new TBGProjects().
Just changing:
List<TBGProject> list = TBGService.get(repository)
.doGet(new TBGProjects()).getProjects();
with:
TBGProjects projects = TBGService.get(repository).doGet(new TBGProjects());
List<TBGProject> = projects.getProjects();
makes it work. But what's happening here? What am I missing?
Java infers the type of T based on what you assign the return value of the method to.
If you don't assign the return value to anything, Java has no idea what T should be.
To fix this, you can change the parameter to be of type T so Java can infer T from the parameter you pass:
public <T extends TBGObject> T doGet(T model) throws TBGServiceException {
A little background as to what I'm trying to achieve:
I'm parsing JSON (over 15GB) and I must store it in memory so any wrappers and extra data is not welcomed, due to the framework and interfaces used within it I must provide functionality to access fields by name. By replacing some String with Enum, Integer with int, Double with double, etc. I'm able to shave about 90% of memory footprint (in comparison with Jackson).
I'm looking to efficiently access the fields at runtime in Java by their name. I'm aware of reflection, but for my case its performance is simply unacceptable, so I don't want to use it.
If it makes the problem easier to solve I'm not too bothered about setting the fields values. I also know at compile time the names of supported fields.
I don't want to store everything in a map i.e. Map<String,Object> due to the memory footprint of boxed object, but I don't mind returning them in a boxed form.
I'm sure this problem was encountered by others and I'm interested in any clever solutions - cleverer than tons of if ... else ... statements.
Let's say the interface to implement is:
public interface Accessor {
Object get(String fieldName);
}
The Object returned by get can be of any type including enum. A naive implementation would be:
public class TestObject implements Accessor {
public enum MyEnum {ONE, TWO, THREE};
private final MyEnum myEnum;
private final int myInt;
private final double myDouble;
private final String myString;
public TestObject(MyEnum myEnum, int myInt, double myDouble, String myString) {
this.myEnum = myEnum;
this.myInt = myInt;
this.myDouble = myDouble;
this.myString = myString;
}
#Override
public Object get(String fieldName) {
if ("myEnum".equals(fieldName)) {
return myEnum;
} else if ("myInt".equals(fieldName)) {
return myInt;
} else if ("myDouble".equals(fieldName)) {
return myDouble;
} else if ("myString".equals(fieldName)) {
return myString;
} else {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(); // Or could simply return null
}
}
}
What you want is a mapping from a fieldName to a value, the type of which is determined by the fieldName. You know the set of field names up-front, so this is an ideal task for an Enum.
If you don't like the idea of hard-coding each field as an enum, then the variation would be an enum-per-type (MY_FIELD1 becomes MY_ENUM), with a mapping from fieldName to this EnumType.
In the code below I'm making assumptions about the relationship between fieldName and TestObject. Specifically it looks like TestObject is presenting various types of the same value (surely where reasonable), as opposed to a separate value for each field name?
So, to the code:
Rewrite:
#Override
public Object get(String fieldName) {
MyField field = MyField.mapNameToField(fieldName);
if (field == null)
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(); // Or could simply return null
return field.getValue(this);
}
Given (something like):
enum MyField {
MY_FIELD1("myField1") {
public Object getValue(TestObject obj) { return obj.myEnum; }
},
MY_FIELD2("myField2") {
public Object getValue(TestObject obj) { return obj.myInt; }
},
...
;
public abstract Object getValue(TestObject obj);
public String getName() { return name; }
public static MyField mapNameToField(String name) { return map.get(name); }
static {
map = new HashMap<String,MyField>();
for(MyField value: values()) {
map.put(value.getName(), value);
}
}
private MyField(String fieldName) { name = fieldName; }
private String name;
private static Map<String, MyField> map;
}
I've never used this, but looks promising:
http://labs.carrotsearch.com/download/hppc/0.4.1/api/
"High Performance Primitive Collections (HPPC) library provides typical data structures (lists, stacks, maps) template-generated for all Java primitive types (byte, int, etc.) to conserve memory and boost performance."
In particular, the Object{Type}OpenHashMap classes might be what you're looking for:
ObjectByteOpenHashMap
ObjectCharOpenHashMap
ObjectDoubleOpenHashMap
ObjectFloatOpenHashMap
ObjectIntOpenHashMap
ObjectLongOpenHashMap
ObjectShortOpenHashMap
I imagine you would have all 7 of these defined as fields (or whatever subset of them you like), and you would probe each one in turn to see if the key was present for that type of primitive value. E.g.,
if (byteMap.containsKey(key)) {
return byteMap.lget(); // last value saved in a call to containsKey()
} else if (charMap.containsKey(key)) {
return charMap.lget();
} else if {
// and so on...
}
Notice they have their own special lget() method call to optimize the containsKey() / get() usage pattern so typical with maps.
I have several Java enums that looks something like below (edited for confidentiality, etc).
In each case, I have a lookup method that I'm really not satisfied with; in the example below, it is findByChannelCode.
public enum PresentationChannel {
ChannelA("A"),
ChannelB("B"),
ChannelC("C"),
ChannelD("D"),
ChannelE("E");
private String channelCode;
PresentationChannel(String channelCode) {
this.channelCode = channelCode;
}
public String getChannelCode() {
return this.channelCode;
}
public PresentationChannel findByChannelCode(String channelCode) {
if (channelCode != null) {
for (PresentationChannel presentationChannel : PresentationChannel.values()) {
if (channelCode.equals(presentationChannel.getChannelCode())) {
return presentationChannel;
}
}
}
return null;
}
}
The problem is, I feel silly doing these linear lookups when I could just be using a HashMap<String, PresentationChannel>. So I thought of the solution below, but it's a little messier that I would hope and, more to the point, I didn't care to re-invent the wheel when surely someone else has come across this. I wanted to get some of the sage wisdom of this group: what is the proper way to index an enum by value?
My solution:
ImmutableMap<String, PresentationChannel> enumMap = Maps.uniqueIndex(ImmutableList.copyOf(PresentationChannel.values()), new Function<PresentationChannel, String>() {
public String apply(PresentationChannel input) {
return input.getChannelCode();
}});
and, in the enum:
public static PresentationChannel findByChannelCode(String channelCode) {
return enumMap.get(channelCode);
}
I think you're using non-JDK classes here right?
A similar solution with JDK API:
private static final Map<String, PresentationChannel> channels = new HashMap<String, PresentationChannel>();
static{
for (PresentationChannel channel : values()){
channels.put(channel.getChannelCode(), channel);
}
}
I wanted to get some of the sage wisdom of this group: what is the proper way to index an enum by value?
Quite possibly not doing it at all.
While hash tables provide O(1) lookup, they also have quite a large constant overhead (for hash calculations etc), so for small collections a linear search may well be faster (if "the efficient way" is your definition of "the proper way").
If you just want a DRY way to do it, I suppose Guava's Iterables.find is an alternative:
return channelCode == null ? null : Iterables.find(Arrays.asList(values()),
new Predicate<PresentationChannel>() {
public boolean apply(PresentationChannel input) {
return input.getChannelCode().equals(channelCode);
}
}, null);
Why don't you name your members A, B, C, D, E and use valueOf?
I was looking for something similar and found on this site a simple, clean and straight to the point way. Create and initialize a static final map inside your enum and add a static method for the lookup, so it would be something like:
public enum PresentationChannel {
ChannelA("A"),
ChannelB("B"),
ChannelC("C"),
ChannelD("D"),
ChannelE("E");
private String channelCode;
PresentationChannel(String channelCode) {
this.channelCode = channelCode;
}
public String getChannelCode() {
return this.channelCode;
}
private static final Map<String, PresentationChannel> lookup
= new HashMap<String, PresentationChannel>();
static {
for(PresentationChannel pc : EnumSet.allOf(PresentationChannel.class)) {
lookup.put(pc.getChannelCode(), pc);
}
}
public static PresentationChannel get(String channelCode) {
return lookup.get(channelCode);
}
}
for few values that's ok, iteration through the values array(). One note only: use smth like that. values() clones the array on each invocation.
static final PresentationChannel[] values=values();
static PresentationChannel getByCode(String code){
if (code==null)
return null;
for(PresentationChannel channel: values) if (code.equals(channel.channelCode)) return channel;
return null;
}
if you have more Channels.
private static final Map<String code, PresentationChannel> map = new HashMap<String code, PresentationChannel>();
static{//hashmap sucks a bit, esp if you have some collisions so you might need to initialize the hashmap depending on the values count and w/ some arbitrary load factor
for(PresentationChannel channel: values()) map.put(channel.channelCode, channel);
}
static PresentationChannel getByCode(String code){
return map.get(code);
}
Edit:
So implement an helper interface, like shown below, another example why java syntax generics blows and sometimes - better not used.
Usage PresentationChannel channel = EnumRepository.get(PresentationChannel.class, "A");
There will be overhead but well, it's quite fool proof.
public interface Identifiable<T> {
T getId();
public static class EnumRepository{
private static final ConcurrentMap<Class<? extends Identifiable<?>>, Map<?, ? extends Identifiable<?>>> classMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<Class<? extends Identifiable<?>>, Map<?,? extends Identifiable<?>>>(16, 0.75f, 1);
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static <ID, E extends Identifiable<ID>> E get(Class<E> clazz, ID value){
Map<ID, E> map = (Map<ID, E>) classMap.get(clazz);
if (map==null){
map=buildMap(clazz);
classMap.putIfAbsent(clazz, map);
}
return map.get(value);
}
private static <ID, E extends Identifiable<ID>> Map<ID, E> buildMap( Class<E> clazz){
E[] enumConsts = clazz.getEnumConstants();
if (enumConsts==null)
throw new IllegalArgumentException(clazz+ " is not enum");
HashMap<ID, E> map = new HashMap<ID, E>(enumConsts.length*2);
for (E e : enumConsts){
map.put(e.getId(), e);
}
return map;
}
}
}
enum X implements Identifiable<String>{
...
public String getId(){...}
}
Minor warning: if you put Identifiable somewhere out there, and many projects/wepapp depend on it (and share it) and so on, it's possible to leak classes/classloaders.
Here is another way to implement an unmodifiable map:
protected static final Map<String, ChannelCode> EnumMap;
static {
Map<String, ChannelCode> tempMap = new HashMap<String, ChannelCode>();
tempMap.put("A", ChannelA);
tempMap.put("B", ChannelB);
tempMap.put("C", ChannelC);
tempMap.put("D", ChannelD);
tempMap.put("E", ChannelE);
EnumMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap(tempMap);
}
You can use EnumMap.get(someCodeAthroughE) to quickly retrieve the ChannelCode. If the expression is null then your someCodeAthroughE was not found.
If you are expecting the provided channelCode to always be valid then you can just try and get the correct instance of the enum using the valueOf() method. If the provided value is invalid you can return null or propagate the exception.
try {
return PresentationChannel.valueOf(channelCode);
catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
//do something.
}
Can I contain two different types in a collection? For example, can I have List< String U Integer > ?
Short answer? No. You can (of course) have a List of Objects, but then you can put anything in it, not just String or Integer objects.
You could create a list of container objects, and that container object would contain either an Integer or String (perhaps via generics). A little more hassle.
public class Contained<T> {
T getContained();
}
and implement Contained<Integer> and Contained<String>.
Of course, the real question is why you want to do this? I would expect a collection to contain objects of the same type, and then I can iterate through and perform actions on these objects without worrying what they are. Perhaps your object hierarchy needs further thought?
Nope. You have a couple of alternatives, though:
You can use a List < Object > and stash whatever you like; or
You can use a List < Class-with-2-members > and put your data in one of those class members.
EDIT: Example.
class UnionHolder {
public String stringValue;
public int intValue;
}
List < UnionHolder > myList
...
Of course you'll need a bit of additional code to figure out which kind of data to pull out of the UnionHolder object you just got out of your list. One possibility would be to have a 3rd member which has different values depending on which it is, or you could, say, have a member function like
public boolean isItAString() { return (this.stringValue != null }
If you are doing something like functional programming in Java 8 or above, you may want to try JavaSealedUnions:
Union2.Factory<String, Integer> factory = GenericUnions.doubletFactory();
Union2<String, Integer> strElem = factory.first("hello");
Union2<String, Integer> intElem = factory.second(3);
List<Union2<String, Integer>> list = Array.asList(strElem, intElem);
for (Union2<String, Integer> elem : list) {
elem.continued(
strElem -> System.out.println("string: " + strElem),
intElem -> System.out.println("integer: " + intElem));
}
Haven't tested this, but I think you got the idea.
In addition to the nice answers already provided ...
Possibly, you have the two data types in your algorithm. But you may not have to put them in the same list...
Creating two typed lists could be the clearer for your algorithm, you would still keep the "type-safeness" and carry all your data. Two code samples follow, the second grouping the two lists in a MyData object.
public class Algorithm1 {
public void process(List<String> strings, List<Integer> integers) {
...
}
}
--------------------------------------
public class DataPair {
public List<String> strings;
public List<Integer> integers;
}
public class Algorithm2 {
public void process(DataPair dataPair) {
...
}
}
what you're decribing is the perfect use case for the Visitor pattern
100% statically type-checked
doesn't need Java 8 or above
usage:
List<UnionType> unionTypes = Arrays
.asList(new StringContainer("hello"), new IntegerContainer(4));
for (UnionType unionType : unionTypes) {
unionType.when(new UnionType.Cases<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer is(StringContainer stringContainer) {
// type-specific handling code
}
#Override
public Integer is(IntegerContainer integerContainer) {
// type-specific handling code
}
});
}
boilerplate code:
interface UnionType {
<R> R when(Cases<R> c);
interface Cases<R> {
R is(StringContainer stringContainer);
R is(IntegerContainer integerContainer);
}
}
class StringContainer implements UnionType {
private final String value;
public StringContainer(String value) { this.value = value; }
public String getValue() { return value; }
#Override
public <R> R when(Cases<R> cases) {
return cases.is(this);
}
}
class IntegerContainer implements UnionType {
private final Integer value;
public IntegerContainer(Integer value) { this.value = value; }
public Integer getValue() { return value; }
#Override
public <R> R when(Cases<R> cases) {
return cases.is(this);
}
}
No. Think about it this way: with generics, the whole idea is to provide type safety. That would not be possible if you could put Objects of different types into it.
You can use the non-generic java.util.List for your purpose.
If you want to ensure that only String or Integer objects enter the list, you could create your own List implementation like so:
public class MySpecialList {
private List list= new LinkedList();
...
public void add(final String string) {
list.add(string);
}
public void add(final Integer integer) {
list.add(integer);
}
...
// add rest of List style methods
}
Drawback: you loose the List interface clarity...