Related
I'm trying to implement an action/reaction system in Java.
For that, I need to have all my methods stock in a container so I can easily call the response I need with the return of the action I want.
Being a C ++ developer and new to Java my first intuition was to create an array of function pointers (or at least reproduce it) so I tried to used anonymous subclasses. But didn't get the result I was looking for.
So I tried with lambdas, here is a sample of what I'm trying to do.
public class Test {
public Map<Integer, Vector<String>> actions = new HashMap<>();
public Map<Integer, Integer> responses = new HashMap<>();
public Test() {
Vector<String> v= new Vector<String>();
actions.put(0, action0());
actions.put(1, action1());
responses.put(0, response0(Vector<String>)); // How can I leave aside this argument which I don't know at this point ?
responses.put(1, response1(Vector<String>));
}
public Vector<String> action0() {...}
public Vector<String> action1() {...}
// This methods takes actions return as argument
public Integer response0 (Vector<String>) {...}
public Integer response1 (Vector<String>) {...}
public void run() {
// When I run, I want to be able to launch any of my responses with any of my actions return
responses.get(0)
}
}
Am I at least trying a good way to solve this problem ?
Thanks a lot
Your code has a few flaws, so I'll assume that getHashtag() and action1() were supposed to be the same, and similar for the other three.
Also, I'll assume that the second responses.put() should have been key 1, not 0. Also, the parameter to your responseX() methods need a name.
Anyway, you need a functional interface, so you can give the responseX() methods as Method References.
In your case, the responseX() methods take a Vector<String> as parameter, and returns an Integer, so the functional interface would be Function<Vector<String>, Integer>.
You can then build a map of those methods, to be executed later.
public Test() {
// Here we can build map of response methods first, if we like, even though Vectors don't exist yet
Map<Integer, Function<Vector<String>, Integer>> responseMethods = new HashMap<>();
responseMethods.put(0, this::response0);
responseMethods.put(1, this::response1);
// Now we build the action map of Vectors
Map<Integer, Vector<String>> actions = new HashMap<>();
actions.put(0, action0());
actions.put(1, action1());
// At this time, we can now execute the referenced methods to get the actual responses
Map<Integer, Integer> responses = new HashMap<>();
for (Integer key : actions.keySet()) {
Vector<String> v = actions.get(key);
Function<Vector<String>, Integer> responseMethod = responseMethods.get(key);
Integer response = responseMethod.apply(v);
responses.put(key, response);
}
}
public Vector<String> action0() {...}
public Vector<String> action1() {...}
public Integer response0(Vector<String> v) {...}
public Integer response1(Vector<String> v) {...}
You can even defer the execution of the action methods if you want:
public Test() {
// Here we can build map of response methods first, if we like, even though Vectors don't exist yet
Map<Integer, Function<Vector<String>, Integer>> responseMethods = new HashMap<>();
responseMethods.put(0, this::response0);
responseMethods.put(1, this::response1);
// Now we build the action map of Vectors
Map<Integer, Supplier<Vector<String>>> actionMethods = new HashMap<>();
actionMethods.put(0, this::action0);
actionMethods.put(1, this::action1);
// At this time, we can now execute the referenced methods to get the actual responses
Map<Integer, Integer> responses = new HashMap<>();
for (Integer key : actionMethods.keySet()) {
Supplier<Vector<String>> actionMethod = actionMethods.get(key);
Function<Vector<String>, Integer> responseMethod = responseMethods.get(key);
Vector<String> v = actionMethod.get();
Integer response = responseMethod.apply(v);
responses.put(key, response);
}
}
The following method performs ordering.
public List<Comparator<Entity>> sort(Map<String, String> map) {
List<Comparator<Entity>> list = new ArrayList<Comparator<Entity>>();
for (Map.Entry<String, String> entry : map.entrySet()) {
boolean sortOrder = entry.getValue().equalsIgnoreCase("asc");
switch (entry.getKey()) {
case "id":
list.add(sortOrder ? Comparator.comparing(Entity::getId) : Comparator.comparing(Entity::getId, Comparator.reverseOrder()));
break;
case "size":
list.add(sortOrder ? Comparator.comparing(Entity::getSize) : Comparator.comparing(Entity::getSize, Comparator.reverseOrder()));
//break;
}
}
return list;
}
The list being returned by the above method is used in the following way.
// map is initialized somewhere based on client's interactions with sorting.
// Based on client's interactions, map may be empty or it may contain one or more ordering fields.
if (MapUtils.isNotEmpty(map)) { // map = new LinkedHashMap<String, String>();
List<Comparator<Entity>> comparators = sort(map);
Comparator<Entity> comparator = comparators.remove(0);
for (Comparator<Entity> c : comparators) {
comparator = comparator.thenComparing(c);
}
list = list.stream().sorted(comparator).collect(Collectors.toList());
} else {
// This is the default ordering.
list = list.stream().sorted(Comparator.comparing(Entity::getId).reversed()).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
Entity contains two fields named id of type Integer and size of type BigDecimal and list is a type of List<Entity>.
Since there are several other classes having the same fields with the same datatypes, I want this method to be generic so that it has to be defined only once like so,
public <T extends Object> List<Comparator<T>> sort(Map<String, String> map, Class<T> clazz) {
List<Comparator<T>> list = new ArrayList<Comparator<T>>();
// Sorting logic.
return list;
}
But doing so, expressions like T::getId will not compile as obvious, since the generic type parameter T evaluates to Object.
Is there a way to code sorting without knowing the actual class type so that this method can be prevented from being repeated everywhere, when it is needed?
A simple way, without having to rely on reflection magic, is to introduce a common interface for all the types having the same fields with the same datatypes as Entity.
Consider the following IdSize interface with the following Entity.
interface IdSize {
Integer getId();
BigDecimal getSize();
}
class Entity implements IdSize {
private Integer id;
private BigDecimal size;
#Override
public Integer getId() {
return id;
}
#Override
public BigDecimal getSize() {
return size;
}
}
Then you can make your method generic like this:
public <T extends IdSize> List<Comparator<T>> sort(Map<String, String> map) {
List<Comparator<T>> list = new ArrayList<Comparator<T>>();
for (Map.Entry<String, String> entry : map.entrySet()) {
boolean sortOrder = entry.getValue().equalsIgnoreCase("asc");
Comparator<T> comparator = null;
switch (entry.getKey()) {
case "id":
comparator = Comparator.comparing(IdSize::getId);
break;
case "size":
comparator = Comparator.comparing(IdSize::getSize);
break;
default: // do something here, throw an exception?
}
list.add(sortOrder ? comparator : comparator.reversed());
}
return list;
}
(I refactored a little the switch-case statement to remove the duplicated code.). Also, you might want to add a default clause.
Use interfaces:
public interface Sizable {
BigDecimal getSize();
}
public interface Id {
int getId();
}
Have your classes implement those interface and use them in your generic methods:
public <T extends Id & Sizable> List<Comparator<T>> sort(Map<String, String> map) {
// ...
}
You'll probably need something more dynamic. Some annotations may help
class Shoe
#Column("id")
#Sortable
public int getId(){ ... }
#Column("Description")
public String getDescription(){...}
Given any class, you can reflect on columns to display, columns that can be sorted ("id", ...), and values of columns ("getId()", ...).
If you want to create a compound Comparator anyway, there is no point in filling a List first. Just do it in one operation:
public static <T> Comparator<T> getOrdering(
Map<String, String> map, Map<String,Comparator<T>> defined) {
return map.entrySet().stream().map(e -> {
Comparator<T> c=defined.get(e.getKey());
return e.getValue().equalsIgnoreCase("asc")? c: c.reversed();
})
.reduce(Comparator::thenComparing)
.orElseThrow(()->new IllegalArgumentException("empty"));
}
This works for arbitrary types but requires to provide a map of existing comparators for a type. But this map isn’t a restriction, it actually improves the operation as it removes the hardcoded set of existing named property comparators. You can use it with an arbitrary type, Entity being exemplary here, as follows:
Map<String,Comparator<Entity>> map=new TreeMap<>(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER);
map.put("id", Comparator.comparing(Entity::getID));
map.put("size", Comparator.comparing(Entity::getSize));
Comparator<Entity> cmp=getOrdering(param, map);
whereas param is the ordered map of your question, mapping from property name to either "asc" or "desc". The map holding the predefined comparators can be created once in initialization code and then be re-used.
The creation code doesn’t look so complicated that it deserves implementing a dynamic solution, however, if you still wish to do it, here is the code to generate such a map for arbitrary classes:
public final class DynamicComparators<T> {
public static <T> Map<String,Comparator<T>> getComparators(Class<T> cl) {
return CACHE.get(cl).cast(cl).comps;
}
private static final ClassValue<DynamicComparators> CACHE
=new ClassValue<DynamicComparators>() {
#Override protected DynamicComparators computeValue(Class<?> type) {
return new DynamicComparators<>(type);
}
};
private final Class<T> theClass;
private final Map<String, Comparator<T>> comps;
private DynamicComparators(Class<T> cl) {
theClass=cl;
Map<String,Comparator<T>> map=new TreeMap<>(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER);
try {
BeanInfo bi=Introspector.getBeanInfo(cl);
MethodHandles.Lookup l=MethodHandles.lookup();
MethodType invoked=MethodType.methodType(Function.class);
for(PropertyDescriptor pd: bi.getPropertyDescriptors()) {
Method m=pd.getReadMethod();
if(m==null) continue;
Class<?> t=m.getReturnType();
if(!t.isPrimitive() && !Comparable.class.isAssignableFrom(t))
continue;
MethodHandle mh=l.unreflect(m);
MethodType mt=mh.type();
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")Comparator<T> cmp
= Comparator.comparing((Function<T,Comparable>)LambdaMetafactory
.metafactory(l, "apply", invoked, mt.generic(), mh, mt)
.getTarget().invokeExact());
map.put(pd.getName(), cmp);
}
} catch(Throwable ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
this.comps=Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked") <U> DynamicComparators<U> cast(Class<U> cl) {
if(cl!=theClass) throw new ClassCastException();
return (DynamicComparators<U>)this;
}
}
It may be a bad practice, but I haven't been able to figure out any better solution for my problem. So I have this map
// Map<state, Map<transition, Map<property, value>>>
private Map<String, Map<String, Map<String, String>>> properties;
and I want to initialize it so I don't get NullPointerException with this
properties.get("a").get("b").get("c");
I tried this one but I didn't work (obviously)
properties = new HashMap<String, Map<String, Map<String,String>>>();
Other things I tried didn't compile.
Also if you have any ideas how to avoid this nested maps, I would appreciate it.
It seems to me that you need to create your own Key class:
public class Key {
private final String a;
private final String b;
private final String c;
public Key(String a, String b, String c) {
// initialize all fields here
}
// you need to implement equals and hashcode. Eclipse and IntelliJ can do that for you
}
If you implement your own key class, your map will look like this:
Map<Key, String> map = new HashMap<Key, String>();
And when looking for something in the map you can use:
map.get(new Key("a", "b", "c"));
The method above will not throw a NullPointerException.
Please remember that for this solution to work, you need to override equals and hashcode in the Key class. There is help here. If you don't override equals and hashcode, then a new key with the same elements won't match an existing key in the map.
There are other possible solutions but implementing your own key is a pretty clean one in my opinion. If you don't want to use the constructor you can initialize your key with a static method and use something like:
Key.build(a, b, c)
It is up to you.
You need to put maps in your maps in your map. Literally:
properties = new HashMap<String, Map<String, Map<String,String>>>();
properties.put("a", new HashMap<String, Map<String,String>>());
properites.get("a").put("b", new HashMap<String,String>());
If your target is lazy initialization without NPE you have to create your own map:
private static abstract class MyMap<K, V> extends HashMap<K, V> {
#Override
public V get(Object key) {
V val = super.get(key);
if (val == null && key instanceof K) {
put((K)key, val = create());
}
return val;
}
protected abstract V create();
}
public void initialize() {
properties = new MyMap<String, Map<String, Map<String, String>>>() {
#Override
protected Map<String, Map<String, String>> create() {
return new MyMap<String, Map<String, String>>() {
#Override
protected Map<String, String> create() {
return new HashMap<String, String>();
}
};
}
};
}
You could use a utility method:
public static <T> T get(Map<?, ?> properties, Object... keys) {
Map<?, ?> nestedMap = properties;
for (int i = 0; i < keys.length; i++) {
if (i == keys.length - 1) {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
T value = (T) nestedMap.get(keys[i]);
return value;
} else {
nestedMap = (Map<?, ?>) nestedMap.get(keys[i]);
if(nestedMap == null) {
return null;
}
}
}
return null;
}
This can be invoked like this:
String result = get(properties, "a", "b", "c");
Note that care is required when using this as it is not type-safe.
The only way to do it with this structure is to pre-initialise the 1st and 2nd level maps with ALL possible keys. If this is not possible to do you can't achieve what you are asking with plain Maps.
As an alternative you can build a custom data structure that is more forgiving. For example a common trick is for a failed key lookup to return an "empty" structure rather than null, allowing nested access.
You can't initialize this in one go, since you normally don't know what keys you'll have in advance.
Thus you'd have to check whether the submap for a key is null and if so you might add an empty map for that. Preferably you'd only do that when adding entries to the map and upon retrieving entries you return null if one of the submaps in the path doesn't exist. You could wrap that in your own map implementation for ease of use.
As an alternative, apache commons collections' MultiKeyMap might provide what you want.
It's impossible to use properties.get("a").get("b").get("c"); and be sure to avoid null unless you make your own Map. In fact, you can't predict that your map will contains "b" key.
So try to make your own class to handle nested get.
I think a better solution is using an object as the only key to the map of values. The key will be composed of three fields, state, transition and property.
import org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.EqualsBuilder;
import org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.HashCodeBuilder;
public class Key {
private String state;
private String transition;
private String property;
public Key(String state, String transition, String property) {
this.state = state;
this.transition = transition;
this.property = property;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return EqualsBuilder.reflectionEquals(this, other);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return HashCodeBuilder.reflectionHashCode(this);
}
}
When you check for a value, the map will return null for a key that is not associated with a value
Map<Key, String> values = new HashMap<Key, String>();
assert values.get(new Key("a", "b", "c")) == null;
values.put(new Key("a", "b", "c"), "value");
assert values.get(new Key("a", "b", "c")) != null;
assert values.get(new Key("a", "b", "c")).equals("value");
To efficiently and correctly use an object as a key in a Map you should override the methods equals() and hashCode(). I have built thos methods using the reflective functionalities of the Commons Lang library.
I think, following is the easier way:
public static final Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>> A_Map = new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>>()
{
{
put(0, new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>()
{
{
put(0, new HashMap<Integer, Double>()
{
{
put(0, 1 / 60.0);
put(1, 1 / 3600.0);
}
});
put(1, new HashMap<Integer, Double>()
{
{
put(0, 1 / 160.0);
put(1, 1 / 13600.0);
}
});
}
});
put(1, new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>()
{
{
put(0, new HashMap<Integer, Double>()
{
{
put(0, 1 / 260.0);
put(1, 1 / 3600.0);
}
});
put(1, new HashMap<Integer, Double>()
{
{
put(0, 1 / 560.0);
put(1, 1 / 1300.0);
}
});
}
});
}
};
Using computeIfAbsent/putIfAbsent makes it simple:
private <T> void addValueToMap(String keyA, String keyB, String keyC, String value) {
map.computeIfAbsent(keyA, k -> new HashMap<>())
.computeIfAbsent(keyB, k -> new HashMap<>())
.putIfAbsent(keyC, value);
}
Using Collections.unmodifiableMap(...), I'm trying to return an unmodifiable view of a map. Let's say I have the following method,
public final Map<Foo, Bar> getMap(){
...
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
Why is it legal elsewhere to do the following,
Map<Foo, Bar> map = getMap();
map.put(...);
This doesn't throw an UnsupportedOperationException like I thought it would. Can someone please explain this, or suggest how I can successfully return a truly unmodifiable map?
Are you sure you're not masking your exceptions somehow? This works absolutely fine, in that it throws UnsupportedOperationException:
import java.util.*;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Map<String, String> map = getMap();
map.put("a", "b");
}
public static final Map<String, String> getMap(){
Map<String, String> map = new HashMap<String, String>();
map.put("x", "y");
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
}
I suggest you print out map.getClass() on the return value of the method - I would expect it to be an UnmodifiableMap.
I created a small test program and my program threw an 'UnsupportedOperationException' when I tried to put data in.
code:
import java.util.*;
public class TestUnmodifiableMap
{
Map<Integer, String> myMap;
public TestUnmodifiableMap()
{
myMap = new HashMap<Integer, String>();
}
public final Map<Integer, String> getMap()
{
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(myMap);
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
TestUnmodifiableMap t = new TestUnmodifiableMap();
Map<Integer, String> testMap = t.getMap();
testMap.put(new Integer("1"), "Hello");
}
}
What else are you doing in your class?
There must be something else wrong. There's no way you can put something in that map after you wrapped it as an unmodifiable map.
I would also suggest to return
return Collections.<Foo, Bar>unmodifiableMap(map);
otherwise you will get "unchecked" warnings when compiling your code with -Xlint:unchecked.
I have a nested map:
Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>> areaPrices = new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>();
and this map is populated using the code:
while(oResult.next())
{
Integer areaCode = new Integer(oResult.getString("AREA_CODE"));
Map<Integer, Double> zonePrices = areaPrices.get(areaCode);
if(zonePrices==null)
{
zonePrices = new HashMap<Integer, Double>();
areaPrices.put(areaCode, zonePrices);
}
Integer zoneCode = new Integer(oResult.getString("ZONE_CODE"));
Double value = new Double(oResult.getString("ZONE_VALUE"));
zonePrices.put(zoneCode, value);
myBean.setZoneValues(areaPrices);
}
I want to use the value of this Map in another method of the same class. For that I have a bean.
How do I populate it on the bean, so that I can get the ZONE_VALUE in this other method
In my bean I added one new field as:
private Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>> zoneValues;
with getter and setter as:
public Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>> getZoneValues() {
return zoneValues;
}
public void setZoneValues(Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>> areaPrices) {
this.zoneValues = areaPrices;
}
What I am looking for to do in the other method is something like this:
Double value = myBean.get(areaCode).get(zoneCode);
How do I make it happen :(
I would like to suggest a different, hopefully more readable solution:
public class PriceMap {
private Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>> priceMap =
new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>();
// You'd use this method in your init
public Double setPrice(Integer areaCode, Integer zoneCode, Double price) {
if (!priceMap.containsKey(zoneCode)) {
priceMap.put(zoneCode, new HashMap<Integer, Double>());
}
Map<Integer, Double> areaMap = priceMap.get(zoneCode);
areaMap.put(areaCode, price);
}
public void getPrice(Integer areaCode, Integer zoneCode) {
if (!priceMap.containsKey(zoneCode)) {
// Eek! Exception or return null?
}
Map<Integer, Double> areaMap = priceMap.get(zoneCode);
return areaMap.get(areaCode);
}
}
I think this is a better, more readable abstraction which, very importantly, makes it easier for you or someone else to read after a few months.
EDIT Added get get
If you're stuck with a get(areaCode).get(zoneCode) (order reversed), but myBean is entirely yours, you could do something like:
public class MyBean {
// I suppose you have this already
private final Map<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>> priceMap =
new HashMap<Integer, Map<Integer, Double>>();
private class LooksLikeAMap implements Map<Integer, Double> {
private Integer areaCode = areaCode;
public LooksLikeAMap(Integer areaCode) {
this.areaCode = areaCode;
}
public Double get(Object zoneCode) {
if (!priceMap.containsKey(zoneCode)) {
// Eek! Exception or return null?
}
Map<Integer, Double> areaMap = priceMap.get(zoneCode);
return areaMap.get(areaCode);
}
// Implement other methods similarly
}
public Map<Integer, Double> get(Integer areaCode) {
return new LooksLikeAMap(areaCode);
}
}
OK, programming in a HTML textarea is not my strong suit, but the idea is clear.
Make some Map like structure backed by the complete data set, and initialize that
Map structure with the required AreaCode.
If the idea is not clear, post a comment fast as it's late here:)
EDIT
I am an idiot. I thought the data was zone first, then area while the get should be area first, then zone. In this case the Map already has the right structure, first area then zone, so this is not necessary. The get-get is by default if you make
public MyBean {
public Map<Integer, Double> get(Integer areaCode) {
return data.get(areaCode);
}
}
To start with, all you need is
myBean.getZoneValues(areaCode).get(zoneCode);
the while loop has an annoyance, you need to call myBean.setZoneValues(areaPrices);
out side the while loop
You can't directly control the second get() call because you have a nested Map, you'll need to return the appropriate nested Map to be able to do what you want. A getter like this should do it:
public Map<Integer, Double> get(Integer areaCode) {
return zoneValues.get(areaCode);
}
So when the client code calls get(areaCode) a map will be returned that they can then call get(zoneCode) on.
I'd suggest that you refactor to eliminate the nested Maps though, because you can't stop client code from changing the returned Map, the code is tough to read and you'll have problems if you want to add any more functionality - imagine that you want to provide a String description of an area code in future.
Something like a Map<Integer, AreaCode> where AreaCode is an object that contains what you currently have as a nested Map might be a good place to start.