Because this question is related to my last one, I will link it here.
Suppose I have a class TestB with two integers. I would be able to sort List<TestB> list on a and then on b like this:
list.sort(Comparator.comparing(TestB::getA).thenComparing(TestB::getB));
Now I want to know how to do that with the custom comparator in the last answer.
The custom Comparator version of list.sort(Comparator.comparing(TestB::getA).thenComparing(TestB::getB)); is:
list.sort(new Comparator<>() {
#Override
public int compare(TestB b1, TestB b2) {
int cmp = b1.getA().compareTo(b2.getA());
if (cmp == 0)
cmp = b1.getB().compareTo(b2.getB());
return cmp;
}
});
One option is to use what I call a custom generic multi-comparator:
list2.sort(getComparator( p -> p.getTestB().getA(),
p -> p.getTestB().getB() ));
private <T> Comparator<T> getComparator( Function<T, ? extends Comparable<?>>... functions ) {
return new Comparator<T>() {
#Override
public int compare(T obj1, T obj2) {
for (Function<T, ? extends Comparable<?>> function : functions) {
Comparable<T> res1 = (Comparable<T>) function.apply(obj1);
Comparable<T> res2 = (Comparable<T>) function.apply(obj2);
int result = res1.compareTo((T) res2);
if ( result != 0 ) {
return result;
}
}
return 0;
}
};
}
It will sort from left to right regarding the order which function parameters are placed. Warnings will be raised although. Because it's very generic.
Keep in mind that the types of the final values to be compared must implement Comparator (which primitive types like Integer already do) and you should deal with null problems (I didn't do it here to keep it short).
Related
I'm looking for a way to tell if two sets of different element types are identical if I can state one-to-one relation between those element types. Is there a standard way for doing this in java or maybe guava or apache commons?
Here is my own implementation of this task. For example, I have two element classes which I know how to compare. For simplicity, I compare them by id field:
class ValueObject {
public int id;
public ValueObject(int id) { this.id=id; }
public static ValueObject of(int id) { return new ValueObject(id); }
}
class DTO {
public int id;
public DTO(int id) { this.id=id; }
public static DTO of(int id) { return new DTO(id); }
}
Then I define an interface which does the comparison
interface TwoTypesComparator<L,R> {
boolean areIdentical(L left, R right);
}
And the actual method for comparing sets looks like this
public static <L,R> boolean areIdentical(Set<L> left, Set<R> right, TwoTypesComparator<L,R> comparator) {
if (left.size() != right.size()) return false;
boolean found;
for (L l : left) {
found = false;
for (R r : right) {
if (comparator.areIdentical(l, r)) {
found = true; break;
}
}
if (!found) return false;
}
return true;
}
Example of a client code
HashSet<ValueObject> valueObjects = new HashSet<ValueObject>();
valueObjects.add(ValueObject.of(1));
valueObjects.add(ValueObject.of(2));
valueObjects.add(ValueObject.of(3));
HashSet<DTO> dtos = new HashSet<DTO>();
dtos.add(DTO.of(1));
dtos.add(DTO.of(2));
dtos.add(DTO.of(34));
System.out.println(areIdentical(valueObjects, dtos, new TwoTypesComparator<ValueObject, DTO>() {
#Override
public boolean areIdentical(ValueObject left, DTO right) {
return left.id == right.id;
}
}));
I'm looking for the standard solution to to this task. Or any suggestions how to improve this code are welcome.
This is what I would do in your case. You have sets. Sets are hard to compare, but on top of that, you want to compare on their id.
I see only one proper solution where you have to normalize the wanted values (extract their id) then sort those ids, then compare them in order, because if you don't sort and compare you can possibly skip pass over duplicates and/or values.
Think about the fact that Java 8 allows you to play lazy with streams. So don't rush over and think that extracting, then sorting then copying is long. Lazyness allows it to be rather fast compared to iterative solutions.
HashSet<ValueObject> valueObjects = new HashSet<>();
valueObjects.add(ValueObject.of(1));
valueObjects.add(ValueObject.of(2));
valueObjects.add(ValueObject.of(3));
HashSet<DTO> dtos = new HashSet<>();
dtos.add(DTO.of(1));
dtos.add(DTO.of(2));
dtos.add(DTO.of(34));
boolean areIdentical = Arrays.equals(
valueObjects.stream()
.mapToInt((v) -> v.id)
.sorted()
.toArray(),
dtos.stream()
.mapToInt((d) -> d.id)
.sorted()
.toArray()
);
You want to generalize the solution? No problem.
public static <T extends Comparable<?>> boolean areIdentical(Collection<ValueObject> vos, Function<ValueObject, T> voKeyExtractor, Collection<DTO> dtos, Function<DTO, T> dtoKeyExtractor) {
return Arrays.equals(
vos.stream()
.map(voKeyExtractor)
.sorted()
.toArray(),
dtos.stream()
.map(dtoKeyExtractor)
.sorted()
.toArray()
);
}
And for a T that is not comparable:
public static <T> boolean areIdentical(Collection<ValueObject> vos, Function<ValueObject, T> voKeyExtractor, Collection<DTO> dtos, Function<DTO, T> dtoKeyExtractor, Comparator<T> comparator) {
return Arrays.equals(
vos.stream()
.map(voKeyExtractor)
.sorted(comparator)
.toArray(),
dtos.stream()
.map(dtoKeyExtractor)
.sorted(comparator)
.toArray()
);
}
You mention Guava and if you don't have Java 8, you can do the following, using the same algorithm:
List<Integer> voIds = FluentIterables.from(valueObjects)
.transform(valueObjectIdGetter())
.toSortedList(intComparator());
List<Integer> dtoIds = FluentIterables.from(dtos)
.transform(dtoIdGetter())
.toSortedList(intComparator());
return voIds.equals(dtoIds);
Another solution would be to use List instead of Set (if you are allowed to do so). List has a method called get(int index) that retrieves the element at the specified index and you can compare them one by one when both your lists have the same size. More on lists: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/List.html
Also, avoid using public variables in your classes. A good practice is to make your variables private and use getter and setter methods.
Instantiate lists and add values
List<ValueObject> list = new ArrayList<>();
List<DTO> list2 = new ArrayList<>();
list.add(ValueObject.of(1));
list.add(ValueObject.of(2));
list.add(ValueObject.of(3));
list2.add(DTO.of(1));
list2.add(DTO.of(2));
list2.add(DTO.of(34));
Method that compares lists
public boolean compareLists(List<ValueObject> list, List<DTO> list2) {
if(list.size() != list2.size()) {
return false;
}
for(int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
if(list.get(i).id == list2.get(i).id) {
continue;
} else {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Your current method is incorrect or at least inconsistent for general sets.
Imagine the following:
L contains the Pairs (1,1), (1,2), (2,1).
R contains the Pairs (1,1), (2,1), (2,2).
Now if your id is the first value your compare would return true but are those sets really equal? The problem is that you have no guarantee that there is at most one Element with the same id in the set because you don't know how L and R implement equals so my advise would be to not compare sets of different types.
If you really need to compare two Sets the way you described I would go for copying all Elements from L to a List and then go through R and every time you find the Element in L remove it from the List. Just make sure you use LinkedList instead of ArrayList .
You could override equals and hashcode on the dto/value object and then do : leftSet.containsAll(rightSet) && leftSet.size().equals(rightSet.size())
If you can't alter the element classes, make a decorator and have the sets be of the decorator type.
In Java, I have several SortedSet instances. I would like to iterate over the elements from all these sets. One simple option is to create a new SortedSet, such as TreeSet x, deep-copy the contents of all the individual sets y_1, ..., y_n into it using x.addAll(y_i), and then iterate over x.
But is there a way to avoid deep copy? Couldn't I just create a view of type SortedSet which would somehow encapsulate the iterators of all the inner sets, but behave as a single set?
I'd prefer an existing, tested solution, rather than writing my own.
I'm not aware of any existing solution to accomplish this task, so I took the time to write one for you. I'm sure there's room for improvement on it, so take it as a guideline and nothing else.
As Sandor points out in his answer, there are some limitations that must be imposed or assumed. One such limitation is that every SortedSet must be sorted relative to the same order, otherwise there's no point in comparing their elements without creating a new set (representing the union of every individual set).
Here follows my code example which, as you'll notice, is relatively more complex than just creating a new set and adding all elements to it.
import java.util.*;
final class MultiSortedSetView<E> implements Iterable<E> {
private final List<SortedSet<E>> sets = new ArrayList<>();
private final Comparator<? super E> comparator;
MultiSortedSetView() {
comparator = null;
}
MultiSortedSetView(final Comparator<? super E> comp) {
comparator = comp;
}
#Override
public Iterator<E> iterator() {
return new MultiSortedSetIterator<E>(sets, comparator);
}
MultiSortedSetView<E> add(final SortedSet<E> set) {
// You may remove this `if` if you already know
// every set uses the same comparator.
if (comparator != set.comparator()) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Different Comparator!");
}
sets.add(set);
return this;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(final Object o) {
if (this == o) { return true; }
if (!(o instanceof MultiSortedSetView)) { return false; }
final MultiSortedSetView<?> n = (MultiSortedSetView<?>) o;
return sets.equals(n.sets) &&
(comparator == n.comparator ||
(comparator != null ? comparator.equals(n.comparator) :
n.comparator.equals(comparator)));
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int hash = comparator == null ? 0 : comparator.hashCode();
return 37 * hash + sets.hashCode();
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return sets.toString();
}
private final static class MultiSortedSetIterator<E>
implements Iterator<E> {
private final List<Iterator<E>> iterators;
private final PriorityQueue<Element<E>> queue;
private MultiSortedSetIterator(final List<SortedSet<E>> sets,
final Comparator<? super E> comparator) {
final int n = sets.size();
queue = new PriorityQueue<Element<E>>(n,
new ElementComparator<E>(comparator));
iterators = new ArrayList<Iterator<E>>(n);
for (final SortedSet<E> s: sets) {
iterators.add(s.iterator());
}
prepareQueue();
}
#Override
public E next() {
final Element<E> e = queue.poll();
if (e == null) {
throw new NoSuchElementException();
}
if (!insertFromIterator(e.iterator)) {
iterators.remove(e.iterator);
}
return e.element;
}
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return !queue.isEmpty();
}
private void prepareQueue() {
final Iterator<Iterator<E>> iterator = iterators.iterator();
while (iterator.hasNext()) {
if (!insertFromIterator(iterator.next())) {
iterator.remove();
}
}
}
private boolean insertFromIterator(final Iterator<E> i) {
while (i.hasNext()) {
final Element<E> e = new Element<>(i.next(), i);
if (!queue.contains(e)) {
queue.add(e);
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
private static final class Element<E> {
final E element;
final Iterator<E> iterator;
Element(final E e, final Iterator<E> i) {
element = e;
iterator = i;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(final Object o) {
if (o == this) { return true; }
if (!(o instanceof Element)) { return false; }
final Element<?> e = (Element<?>) o;
return element.equals(e.element);
}
}
private static final class ElementComparator<E>
implements Comparator<Element<E>> {
final Comparator<? super E> comparator;
ElementComparator(final Comparator<? super E> comp) {
comparator = comp;
}
#Override
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public int compare(final Element<E> e1, final Element<E> e2) {
if (comparator != null) {
return comparator.compare(e1.element, e2.element);
}
return ((Comparable<? super E>) e1.element)
.compareTo(e2.element);
}
}
}
}
The inner workings of this class are simple to grasp. The view keeps a list of sorted sets, the ones you want to iterate over. It also needs the comparator that will be used to compare elements (null to use their natural ordering). You can only add (distinct) sets to the view.
The rest of the magic happens in the Iterator of this view. This iterator keeps a PriorityQueue of the elements that will be returned from next() and a list of iterators from the individual sets.
This queue will have, at all times, at most one element per set, and it discards repeating elements. The iterator also discards empty and used up iterators. In short, it guarantees that you will traverse every element exactly once (as in a set).
Here's an example on how to use this class.
SortedSet<Integer> s1 = new TreeSet<>();
SortedSet<Integer> s2 = new TreeSet<>();
SortedSet<Integer> s3 = new TreeSet<>();
SortedSet<Integer> s4 = new TreeSet<>();
// ...
MultiSortedSetView<Integer> v =
new MultiSortedSetView<Integer>()
.add(s1)
.add(s2)
.add(s3)
.add(s4);
for (final Integer i: v) {
System.out.println(i);
}
I do not think that is possible unless it is some special case, which would require custom implementation.
For example take the following two comparators:
public class Comparator1 implements Comparator<Long> {
#Override
public int compare(Long o1, Long o2) {
return o1.compareTo(o2);
}
}
public class Comparator2 implements Comparator<Long> {
#Override
public int compare(Long o1, Long o2) {
return -o1.compareTo(o2);
}
}
and the following code:
TreeSet<Long> set1 = new TreeSet<Long>(new Comparator1());
TreeSet<Long> set2 = new TreeSet<Long>(new Comparator2());
set1.addAll(Arrays.asList(new Long[] {1L, 3L, 5L}));
set2.addAll(Arrays.asList(new Long[] {2L, 4L, 6L}));
System.out.println(Joiner.on(",").join(set1.descendingIterator()));
System.out.println(Joiner.on(",").join(set2.descendingIterator()));
This will result in:
5,3,1
2,4,6
and is useless for any Comparator operating on the head element of the given Iterators.
This makes it impossible to create such a general solution. It is only possible if all sets are sorted using the same Comparator, however that cannot be guaranteed and ensured by any implementation which accept SortedSet objects, given multiple SortedSet instances (e.g. anything that would accept SortedSet<Long> instances, would accept both TreeSet objects).
A little bit more formal approach:
Given y_1,..,y_n are all sorted sets, if:
the intersect of these sets are an empty set
and there is an ordering of the sets where for every y_i, y_(i+1) set it is true that y_i[x] <= y_(i+1)[1] where x is the last element of the y_i sorted set, and <= means a comparative function
then the sets y_1,..,y_n can be read after each other as a SortedSet.
Now if any of the following conditions are not met:
if the first condition is not met, then the definition of a Set is not fulfilled, so it can not be a Set until a deep copy merge is completed and the duplicated elements are removed (See Set javadoc, first paragraph:
sets contain no pair of elements e1 and e2 such that e1.equals(e2)
the second condition can only be ensured using exactly the same comparator <= function
The first condition is the more important, because being a SortedSet implies being a Set, and if the definition of being a Set cannot be fulfilled, then the stronger conditions of a SortedSet definitely cannot be fulfilled.
There is a possibility that an implementation can exists which mimics the working of a SortedSet, but it will definitely not be a SortedSet.
com.google.common.collect.Sets#union from Guava will do the trick. It returns an unmodifiable view of the union of two sets. You may iterate over it. Returned set will not be sorted. You may then create new sorted set from returned set (new TreeSet() or com.google.common.collect.ImmutableSortedSet. I see no API to create view of given set as sorted set.
If your concern is a deep-copy on the objects passed to the TreeSet#addAll method, you shouldn't be. The javadoc does not indicate it's a deep-copy (and it certainly would say so if it was)...and the OpenJDK implementation doesn't show this either. No copies - simply additional references to the existing object.
Since the deep-copy isn't an issue, I think worrying about this, unless you've identified this as a specific performance problem, falls into the premature optimization category.
I have a program where i am have a list of Names, and how many people have that name. I want to put the names in alphabetical order while also putting the counts from greatest to least. If the name has the same count it puts the name in alphabetical order. I figured out how to put the names in abc order and figured out how to put the counts in greatest to least but i cant figure out how to combine the two to get list of names greatest to least and if they have the same count in alphabetical order.
Collections.sort(oneName, new OneNameCompare());
for(OneName a: oneName)
{
System.out.println(a.toString());
}
Collections.sort(oneName, new OneNameCountCompare());
for(OneName a: oneName)
{
System.out.println(a.toString());
}
You can make another Comparator that combines the effects of the two other Comparators. If one comparator compares equal, then you can call the second comparator and use its value.
public class CountNameComparator implements Comparator<Name>
{
private OneNameCompare c1 = new OneNameCompare();
private OneNameCountCompare c2 = new OneNameCountCompare();
#Override
public int compare(Name n1, Name n2)
{
int comp = c1.compare(n1, n2);
if (comp != 0) return comp;
return c2.compare(n1, n2);
}
}
Then you can call Collections.sort just once.
Collections.sort(oneName, new CountNameComparator());
This can be generalized for any number of comparators.
You can combine comparators like this
public static <T> Comparator<T> combine(final Comparator<T> c1, final Comparator<T> c2) {
return new Comparator<T>() {
public int compare(T t1, T t2) {
int cmp = c1.compare(t1, t2);
if (cmp == 0)
cmp = c2.compare(t1, t2);
return cmp;
}
};
}
BTW Comparators are a good example of when to use a stateless singleton. All comparators or a type are the same so you only ever need one of them.
public enum OneNameCompare implements Comparator<OneName> {
INSTANCE;
public int compare(OneName o1, OneName o2) {
int cmp = // compare the two objects
return cmp;
}
}
This avoid creating new instances or cache copies. You only ever need one of each type.
Assuming you're using the Apache Commons Collections API, you might want to check out ComparatorUtils.chainedComparator:
Collections.sort(oneName, ComparatorUtils.chainedComparator(new OneNameCompare(), new OneNameCountCompare());
Using lambdas from Java 8:
Collections.sort(Arrays.asList(""),
(e1, e2) -> e1.getName().compareTo(e2.getName()) != 0 ?
e1.getName().compareTo(e2.getName()) :
e1.getCount().compareTo(e2.getCount()));
Is there a better way to write this comparator? I have an equivalent of multidimensional array where columns are Object's. The actual objects are String and BigDecimal 99% of the time. I am sorting "rows" on a given column index.
I want to avoid instanceof.
protected static class MyComparator implements Comparator<DataRow> {
private int idx;
public MyComparator(int idx) {
this.idx = idx;
}
#Override
public int compare(DataRow r1, DataRow r2) {
Object o1 = r1.getColumns()[idx];
Object o2 = r2.getColumns()[idx];
if (o1 instanceof String){
return ((String)o1).compareTo((String)o2);
}else if (o1 instanceof BigDecimal){
return ((BigDecimal)o1).compareTo((BigDecimal)o2);
}else{
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("comparison cannot be performed");
}
}
Since both String and BigDecimal are Comparables:
return ((Comparable)o1).compareTo(o2);
I think since you only depend on the type Comparable you could rewrite it as:
public int compare(DataRow r1, DataRow r2) {
Comparable o1 = (Comparable) r1.getColumns()[idx];
Comparable o2 = (Comparable) r2.getColumns()[idx];
return o1.compareTo(o2);
}
If you carefully populate the table you shouldn't face the UnsupportedOperationException situation.
If the colum types are not comparable, I would implement separate comparators and make the Column class a factory for the correct comparator that should be used.
I have an ArrayList of object. The object contain attributes date and value. So I want to sort the objects on the date, and for all objects in the same date I want to sort them on value. How can I do that?
Implement a custom Comparator, then use Collections.sort(List, Comparator). It will probably look something like this:
public class FooComparator implements Comparator<Foo> {
public int compare(Foo a, Foo b) {
int dateComparison = a.date.compareTo(b.date);
return dateComparison == 0 ? a.value.compareTo(b.value) : dateComparison;
}
}
Collections.sort(foos, new FooComparator());
public static <T> void sort(List<T> list, final List<Comparator<T>> comparatorList) {
if (comparatorList.isEmpty()) {//Always equals, if no Comparator.
throw new IllegalArgumentException("comparatorList is empty.");
}
Comparator<T> comparator = new Comparator<T>() {
public int compare(T o1, T o2) {
for (Comparator<T> c:comparatorList) {
if (c.compare(o1, o2) > 0) {
return 1;
} else if (c.compare(o1, o2) < 0) {
return -1;
}
}
return 0;
}
};
Collections.sort(list, comparator);
}
Java-8 solution using Stream API:
List<Foo> sorted = list.stream()
.sorted(Comparator.comparing(Foo::getDate)
.thenComparing(Foo::getValue))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
If you want to sort the original list itself:
list.sort(Comparator.comparing(Foo::getDate)
.thenComparing(Foo::getValue));
If you want sample code looks like, you can use following:
Collections.sort(foos, new Comparator<Foo>{
public int compare(Foo a, Foo b) {
int dateComparison = a.date.compareTo(b.date);
return dateComparison == 0 ? a.value.compareTo(b.value) : dateComparison;
}
});
If the class of the object implements Comparable, then all you need to do is properly code the compareTo method to first compare dates, and then if dates are equal, compare values, and then return the appropriate int result based on the findings.