This question already has answers here:
Instantiating interfaces in Java
(15 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I was reading the tutorial from https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/generics/types.html.
Code:
public interface Pair<K, V> {
public K getKey();
public V getValue();
}
public class OrderedPair<K, V> implements Pair<K, V> {
private K key;
private V value;
public OrderedPair(K key, V value) {
this.key = key;
this.value = value;
}
public K getKey() { return key; }
public V getValue() { return value; }
}
But above code, i can't grasp.
Pair<String, Integer> p1 = new OrderedPair<String, Integer>("Even", 8);
Pair<String, String> p2 = new OrderedPair<String, String>("hello",
"world");
It seems like creating an object of Interface, but as per my understanding of OOP in c++, it's impossible to create an object of Abstract Class(My understanding is that Interface is somehow like Abstract Class). Needed a more specific answer "How is it possible to create such object?"
Edited
As i was suggested to view answer at Instantiating interfaces in Java.
What's the differences between instantiation of object in following two cases:
Pair<String, Integer> p1 = new OrderedPair<String, Integer>("Even", 8);
OrderPair<String, Integer> p2 = new OrderedPair<String, Integer>("Even", 8);
You're actually not instantiating an interface. You are instantiating a class which implements the interface, then saving the object to a variable of the interface's type.
Instantiating the interface would be something like this, which you cannot do.
Pair<String, Integer> p1 = new Pair<>("Even", 8);
However, you can make it an anonymous class.
Pair<String, String> p2 = new Pair<String, String>() {
#Override
public String getKey() {
return "hello";
}
#Override
public String getValue() {
return "world";
}
};
Related
Folks,
Is there any easy way to add generic class in non generic class.
Basically the cache manager will have map of Cache class which is implemented with proper generics.
But in below class we return (getCache method) Cache via get method it requires explicit cast at callers place how to avoid it.
e.g.
public class CacheManager {
private Map<String, Cache<?,?>> cacheMap = new HashMap<String, Cache<?,?>>();
public Cache<?,?> getCache(String cacheName) {
return cacheMap.get(cacheName);
}
public void addCache(String cacheName,Cache<?,?> cache) {
cacheMap.put(cacheName, cache);
}
}
Short answer: No (as far as I know).
The problem here is that what you are doing is not type-safe in Java at all. Have a look at this example:
import java.util.*;
class ClassCast {
public static void main(String[] args) {
HashMap<String, Pair<?, ?>> map = new HashMap<>();
map.put("test", new Pair<String, Integer>("Hello", 5));
Pair<Double, Double> pair = (Pair<Double, Double>) map.get("test");
}
}
class Pair<T,V> {
T a;
V b;
Pair(T a, V b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
}
You would expect a ClassCastException here, but it compiles and runs perfectly fine. The reason for this is that the actual class of Pair<String, Integer> and Pair<Double, Double> is in fact just Pair (after type erasure).
To get type safety you have to implement the "Typesafe heterogeneous container pattern" (explained in detail in Effective Java by Josh Bloch). In short, you have to involve the type parameter in the key of your map. Depending on your needs, you might be able to use a class as key directly, otherwise you might have to make a key object.
Example implementation:
public class CacheManager {
private Map<MultiKey, Cache<?,?>> cacheMap = new HashMap<>();
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public <T,V> Cache<T,V> get(String name, Class<T> t, Class<V> v) {
// Type-safe since types are encoded in key(i.e. map will not
// return something with the wrong type), and key is type-checked
// on insertion.
return (Cache<T,V>) cacheMap.get(new MultiKey(name, t, v));
}
public <T,V> void put(String name, Class<T> t, Class<V> v, Cache<T,V> cache) {
cacheMap.put(new MultiKey(name, t, v), cache);
}
class MultiKey {
Object[] keys;
Integer hash = null;
MultiKey(Object... keys) {
this.keys = keys;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
if (hash == null) hash = Arrays.hashCode(keys);
return hash;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (o == null || !(o instanceof MultiKey)) return false;
return Arrays.equals(keys, ((MultiKey) o).keys);
}
}
}
Example usage:
CacheManager mng = new CacheManager();
mng.addCache("SI", String.class, Integer.class, new Cache<String, Integer>());
Cache<String, Integer> cache = mng.getCache("SI", String.class, Integer.class);
System.out.println(cache);
It's not pretty, but it is actually type-safe. It can be improved depending on the actual situation though, so you should not use this code as is. For example, if you can get the types from the Cache object you don't need the Class arguments in addCache.
I was wondering if it was possible to have a Java dictionary of objects where one of the fields of the object is defined to be the key of the dictionary.
To be more specific, here's what I would like: I have defined a class with three fields. One of these fields is an Integer and is unique to each object. I would like this field to be the key of the dictionary.
Yes, of course it's possible.
Example :
Map<Integer,MyClass> map = new HashMap<Integer,MyClass>();
MyClass myObject = new MyClass(...);
map.put (myObject.getIntegerKey(), myObject);
If you want to hide the details:
public interface HasOwnKey<K> {
public K getKey();
}
public class MyMap<K, V extends HasOwnKey<K>> {
{
private Map<K,V> map = new HashMap<>();
public V put(V value) {
{
return this.map.put(value.getKey(),value);
}
public V get(K key) {
return this.map.get(key)
}
... etc
}
public class MyClass extends HasOwnKey<String> {
...
#Override String getKey() { return this.key; }
}
MyMap<String, MyClass> myMap = new MyMap<>();
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
obj.setKey("abc");
myMap.put(obj);
Unfortunately Java 7 doesn't seem to be smart enough to infer K from a declaration like
public class MyMap<V extends HasOwnKey<K>> {
so you have to provide the Key type in two places and cannot do
MyMap<MyClass> myMap = new MyMap<>();
You can do that easily as follows :
public class CustomClass
{
private int primaryKey;
private int secondaryField;
private int tertiaryField;
public CustomClass(int primaryKey, int secondaryField, int tertiaryField)
{
this.primaryKey = primaryKey;
this.secondaryField = secondaryField;
this.tertiaryField = tertiaryField;
}
public int getPrimaryKey(CustomClass object)
{
return object.primaryKey;
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
CustomClass object = new CustomClass(10, 20, 30);
Map map = new HashMap<Integer,CustomClass>();
map.put(object.getPrimaryKey(object), object);
}
}
You may also want to consider using Enums for doing the same, if the number of such records is fairly less, as they provide more readability.
If you already have created a List of those objects you can use an aggregate operation in java 8 like this:
Map<Integer, List<MyClass>> theMap = list
.stream()
.collect( Collectors.groupingBy(MyClass::myIntegerKey) );
I've created an "Attribut" class which is just a wrapper for a key/value single item. I know that Maps and HashMaps are designed for lists of this kind of items so I feel like i reinvented the wheel...
Is there some Class which fulfill this purpose ?
Regards
( My code to be clear about what i'm looking for )
public class Attribut {
private int id;
private String value;
#Override
public String toString() {
return value;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getValue() {
return value;
}
public void setValue(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
You can reuse Map.Entry<K, V>:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/Map.Entry.html
In your case it'd be Map.Entry<Integer, String>.
HashMap !
example :
Map<Integer,String> attribut = new HashMap<Integer, String>();
attribut.put(1, "hi");
String value = attribut.get(1);
you can iterate :
for (Integer key : attribut.keySet()) {
value = attribut.get(key);
}
EDIT :
OK, just for a Pair !
public class Pair<K, V> {
private final K element0;
private final V element1;
public static <K, V> Pair<K, V> createPair(K key, V value) {
return new Pair<K, V>(key, value);
}
public Pair(K element0, V element1) {
this.element0 = element0;
this.element1 = element1;
}
public K getElement0() {
return element0;
}
public V getElement1() {
return element1;
}
}
usage :
Pair<Integer, String> pair = Pair.createPair(1, "test");
pair.getElement0();
pair.getElement1();
Immutable, only a pair !
You can use AbstractMap.SimpleEntry. There is also a SimpleImmutableEntry.
However, I believe that it is not wrong designing your own type. There is a plethora of examples in the JDK itself where something like this (tuple) has been done:
java.awt.Dimension
java.awt.Point
I believe that it's a good thing, since you're code is more easily readable and you gain additional type safety.
You're not "reinventing the wheel", you just specifying your requirements. You want a class that constitutes a mutable int/String pair, and so your code is OK.
Your problem is that Java syntax is overly verbose. It would be nice to simply define it as something like
class IdValuePair(id: int, value: String)
but that's something for other languages.
You could use [Collections.singletonMap()](http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/Collections.html#singletonMap(K, V)).
I need a mapping from a list of keys to a value. I know I could write my own code like this:
Map<Person, Map<Daytime, Map<Food, Integer>>> eaten = ...;
Now I want to have some get and put methods like these:
Integer numberOfEggsIAteInTheMorning = eaten.get(me, morning, scrambledEggs);
eaten.put(me, evening, scrambledEggs, 1);
Do you know of an existing class that has this kind of API? I'm too lazy of writing it myself. ;)
If you look for a more generic approach, and you might have more than 2 or 3 'chain steps', I would suggest in applying some different structural approach, rather than sticking to using only basic collection classes. I have feeling that Composite Pattern could be the right choice if it's correctly applied.
EDIT: due to example requested
The full example would be somewhat time consuming, so let me just explain my idea with dirty Java/pseudocode mix (I'm not even sure if I've missed something!!!). Let's consider we have class BaseMap:
abstract class BaseMap {
public abstract Object getValue(Object.. keys);
public abstract void putValue(Object value, Object.. keys);
}
Then we could have ObjectMap that would be the 'leaf' of our composite structure:
class ObjectsMap extends BaseMap {
private Map<Object, Object> map = new [...]
public Object getValue(Object.. keys) {
// assert that keys.length == 1
return map.get(keys[0]);
}
public void putValue(Object value, Object.. keys) {
// assert that keys.length = 1
map.put(keys[0], value);
}
}
And the actual composite would be as such:
class CompositeMap extends BaseMap {
private Map<Object, BaseMap> compositeMaps = new [...]
public Object getValue(Object.. keys) {
// assert that keys.length > 1
return compositeMap.get(keys[0]).getValue(/* System.arrayCopy => subset of elements {keys_1, .. ,keys_max} */);
}
public void putValue(Object value, Object.. keys) {
// assert keys.length > 1
BaseMap newMap = null;
if (keys.length = 2) -> newMap = new ObjectsMap()
else newMap = new CompositeMap();
newMap.putValue(value, /*subset of keys {keys_1, .. , keys_max}*/);
}
}
You can use org.apache.commons.collections.keyvalue.MultiKey for that: Map<Multikey, Object>
It would be hard to implement a general chained map.
How would the declaration of the class look like? (You can't have a variable number of type parameters.
class ChainedMap<K1..., V>
Another option would be to have a ChainedMapUtil class that performs put / get recursively.
Here is an example of a recursive get. (Quite ugly solution though I must say.)
import java.util.*;
public class Test {
public static Object chainedGet(Map<?, ?> map, Object... keys) {
Object k = keys[0];
if (!map.containsKey(k)) return null;
if (keys.length == 1) return map.get(k);
Object[] tailKeys = Arrays.copyOfRange(keys, 1, keys.length);
return chainedGet((Map<?,?>) map.get(k), tailKeys);
}
public static void main(String[] arg) {
Map<String, String> m1 = new HashMap<String, String>();
m1.put("ipsum", "dolor");
Map<Integer, Map<String, String>> m2 =
new HashMap<Integer, Map<String, String>>();
m2.put(17, m1);
Map<String, Map<Integer, Map<String, String>>> chained =
new HashMap<String, Map<Integer, Map<String, String>>>();
chained.put("lorem", m2);
System.out.println(chainedGet(chained, "lorem", 17, "ipsum")); // dolor
System.out.println(chainedGet(chained, "lorem", 19, "ipsum")); // null
}
}
If you are going to write your own, I would suggest
eaten.increment(me, evening, scrambledEggs);
You could use a composite key
eaten.increment(Key.of(me, evening, scrambledEggs));
(TObjectIntHashMap supports increment and adjust)
You may not even need a custom key.
eaten.increment(me + "," + evening + "," + scrambledEggs);
It is fairly easy to decompose the key with split()
I once made a map using 3 keys just for fun.May be you can use it instead of using chained maps:
public class ThreeKeyMap<K1,K2,K3,V>{
class wrap{
K1 k1;
K2 k2;
K3 k3;
public wrap(K1 k1,K2 k2,K3 k3) {
this.k1=k1;this.k2=k2;this.k3=k3;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object arg0) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
wrap o=(wrap)arg0;
if(!this.k1.equals(o.k1))
return false;
if(!this.k2.equals(o.k2))
return false;
if(!this.k2.equals(o.k2))
return false;
return true;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int result=17;
result=37*result+k1.hashCode();
result=37*result+k2.hashCode();
result=37*result+k3.hashCode();
return result;
}
}
HashMap<wrap,V> map=new HashMap<wrap, V>();
public V put(K1 k1,K2 k2,K3 k3,V arg1) {
return map.put(new wrap(k1,k2,k3), arg1);
}
public V get(Object k1,Object k2,Object k3) {
return map.get(new wrap((K1)k1,(K2)k2,(K3)k3));
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreeKeyMap<Integer,Integer,Integer,String> birthDay=new ThreeKeyMap<Integer, Integer, Integer, String>();
birthDay.put(1, 1,1986,"Emil");
birthDay.put(2,4,2009, "Ansih");
birthDay.put(1, 1,1986,"Praveen");
System.out.println(birthDay.get(1,1,1986));
}
}
UPDATE:
As #Arturs Licis suggested.I looked up in net for composite pattern and I wrote a sample using it.I guess this is composite..Please comment if it is not so.
Person class:
public class Person {
private final String name;
private Map<Time, Food> map = new HashMap<Time, Food>();
public Person(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
void addTimeFood(Time time, Food food) {
map.put(time, food);
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
Food getFood(Time time) {
Food tmp = null;
return (tmp = map.get(time)) == null ? Food.NoFood : tmp;
}
// main to test the person class
public static void main(String[] args) {
Person p1 = new Person("Jack");
p1.addTimeFood(Time.morning, Food.Bread);
p1.addTimeFood(Time.evening, Food.Chicken);
Person p2 = new Person("Jill");
p2.addTimeFood(Time.morning, Food.Egg);
p2.addTimeFood(Time.evening, Food.Rice);
Map<String, Person> map = new HashMap<String, Person>();
map.put(p1.getName(), p1);
map.put(p2.getName(), p2);
System.out.println(map.get("Jack").getFood(Time.evening));
}
#Override
public String toString() {
StringBuilder b = new StringBuilder();
b.append(name).append("\n");
b.append(map);
return b.toString();
}
}
Food class:
public enum Food {
Rice,
Egg,
Chicken,
Bread,
NoFood;
}
Time class:
public enum Time {
morning,
evening,
night
}
This question already has answers here:
A Java collection of value pairs? (tuples?)
(22 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I'm looking for a KeyValuePair class in Java.
Since java.util heavily uses interfaces there is no concrete implementation provided, only the Map.Entry interface.
Is there some canonical implementation I can import?
It is one of those "plumbers programming" classes I hate to implement 100x times.
The class AbstractMap.SimpleEntry is generic and can be useful.
Android programmers could use BasicNameValuePair
Update:
BasicNameValuePair is now deprecated (API 22).
Use Pair instead.
Example usage:
Pair<Integer, String> simplePair = new Pair<>(42, "Second");
Integer first = simplePair.first; // 42
String second = simplePair.second; // "Second"
The Pair class from Commons Lang might help:
Pair<String, String> keyValue = new ImmutablePair("key", "value");
Of course, you would need to include commons-lang.
Use of javafx.util.Pair is sufficient for most simple Key-Value pairings of any two types that can be instantiated.
Pair<Integer, String> myPair = new Pair<>(7, "Seven");
Integer key = myPair.getKey();
String value = myPair.getValue();
import java.util.Map;
public class KeyValue<K, V> implements Map.Entry<K, V>
{
private K key;
private V value;
public KeyValue(K key, V value)
{
this.key = key;
this.value = value;
}
public K getKey()
{
return this.key;
}
public V getValue()
{
return this.value;
}
public K setKey(K key)
{
return this.key = key;
}
public V setValue(V value)
{
return this.value = value;
}
}
I like to use
Properties
Example:
Properties props = new Properties();
props.setProperty("displayName", "Jim Wilson"); // (key, value)
String name = props.getProperty("displayName"); // => Jim Wilson
String acctNum = props.getProperty("accountNumber"); // => null
String nextPosition = props.getProperty("position", "1"); // => 1
If you are familiar with a hash table you will be pretty familiar with this already
You can create your custom KeyValuePair class easily
public class Key<K, V>{
K key;
V value;
public Key() {
}
public Key(K key, V value) {
this.key = key;
this.value = value;
}
public void setValue(V value) {
this.value = value;
}
public V getValue() {
return value;
}
public void setKey(K key) {
this.key = key;
}
public K getKey() {
return key;
}
}
My favorite is
HashMap<Type1, Type2>
All you have to do is specify the datatype for the key for Type1 and the datatype for the value for Type2. It's the most common key-value object I've seen in Java.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/HashMap.html
Hashtable<String, Object>
It is better than java.util.Properties which is by fact an extension of Hashtable<Object, Object>.
I've published a NameValuePair class in GlobalMentor's core library, available in Maven. This is an ongoing project with a long history, so please submit any request for changes or improvements.