Develop Reference

get a getter method from field name to avoid if-else

I have this code, which obviously doesn't look nice - it seems all the if-else can somehow be avoided.
if(sortBy.equals("firstName"))
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(Person::getFirstName));
else if(sortBy.equals("lastName"))
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(Person::getLastName));
else if(sortBy.equals("age"))
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(Person::getAge));
else if(sortBy.equals("city"))
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(Person::getCity));
else if(sortBy.equals("state"))
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(Person::getState));
else if(sortBy.equals("zipCode"))
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(Person::getZipCode));
the function takes sortBy, which is the name of one of the attributes of a Person, and applies a sorting to a personList based on that field. How can I avoid the if-else and write a better looking, possibily one line code?
Currently I have found that I can use a HashMap to create a mapping between a field name and a corresponding comparator.
map.put("age", Comparator.comparing(Person::getAge));
map.put("firstName", Comparator.comparing(Person::getFirstName))
...
And use personList.sort(map.get(sortBy)).
But still felt like it can further be improved without an extra step, to the point where it follows the open-closed principle, and adding a new field to Person would not need us to modify the code. I'm looking for something like
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(Person::getterOfField(sortBy)))
UPDATE-1
For now, I decided to stick with using a Map<String, Function<Person, Comparable<?>> and I do not like to consider reflection based solutions. But still searching if I can find a similar way as this one where sort is a parameter.
UPDATE-2
I think a one-liner is not a good solution, cuz you wouldn't get a compile time error if one of the fields does not implement Comparator.

In general java doesn't want you to work with it this way1; it is not a structurally typed language, and unlike e.g. javascript or python, objects aren't "hashmaps of strings to thingies".
Also, your request more fundamentally doesn't add up: You can't just go from "field name" to "sort on that": What if the field's type isn't inherently sortable (is not a subtype of Comparator<Self>?)
What if there is a column in whatever view we're talking about / config file that is 'generated'? Imagine you have a field LocalDate birthDate; but you have a column 'birth month'2. You can sort on birth month, no problem. However, given that it's a 'generated value' (not backed directly by a field, instead, derived from a calculation based on field(s)), you can't just sort on this. You can't even sort on the backing field (as that would sort by birth year first, not what you want), nor does 'backing field' make sense; what if the virtual column is based on multiple fields?
It is certainly possible that currently you aren't imagining either virtual columns or fields whose type isn't self-sortable and that therefore you want to deposit a rule that for this class, you close the door on these two notions until a pretty major refactor, but it goes to show perhaps why "java does not work that way" is in fact somewhat 'good' (closely meshes with real life concerns), and why your example isn't as boilerplatey as you may have initially thought: No, it is not, in fact, inevitable. Specifically, you seem to want:
There is an exact 1-to-1 match between 'column sort keys' and field names.
The strategy to deliver on the request to sort on a given column sort key is always the same: Take the column sort key. Find the field (it has the same name); now find its getter. Create a comparator based on comparing get calls; this getter returns a type that has a natural sorting order guaranteed.
Which are 2 non-obvious preconditions that seem to have gotten a bit lost. At any rate, a statement like:
if(sortBy.equals("firstName"))
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(Person::getFirstName));
encodes these 2 non-obvious properties, and trivially, therefore means it is also possible to add virtual columns as well as sort keys that work differently (for example, sorts on birth month, or, sorts on some explicit comparator you write for this purpose. Or even sorts case insensitively; strings by default do not do that, you'd have to sort by String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_COMPARATOR instead.
It strikes me as a rather badly written app if a change request comes in with: "Hey, could you make the sort option that sorts on patient name be case insensitive?" and you go: "Hooo boy that'll be a personweek+ of refactoring work!", no?
But, if you insist, you have 2 broad options:
Reflection
Reflection lets you write code that programatically gets a list of field names, method names, and can also be used to programatically call them. You can fetch a list of method names and filter out everything except:
instance methods
with no arguments
whose name starts with get
And do a simple-ish get-prefix-to-sort-key conversion (basically, .substring(3) to lop off the get, then lowercase the first character, though note that the rules for getter to field name get contradictory if the first 'word' of the field is a single letter, such as getXAxis, where half of the beanspec documents say the field name is definitely XAxis, as xAxis would have become getxAxis, and the other half say it is ambiguous and could mean the field name is XAxis or xAxis).
It looks something like this:
// intentionally raw type!
Map comparators = new HashMap();
for (Method m : Person.class.getMethods()) {
if (Modifiers.isStatic(m.getModifiers()) continue;
if (m.getParameterCount() != 0) continue;
String n = m.getName();
if (!n.startsWith("get") || n.length() < 4) continue;
n = Character.toLowerCase(n.charAt(3)) + n.substring(4);
comparators.put(n, (a, b) -> {
Object aa = m.invoke(a);
Object bb = m.invoke(b);
return ((Comparable) aa).compareTo(bb);
});
}
MyClass.COMPARATORS = (Map<String, Comparator<?>>) Collections.unmodifiableMap(comparators);
Note how this causes a boatload of errors because you just chucked type checking out the window - there is no actual way to ensure that any given getter type actually is an appropriate Comparable. The warnings are correct and you have to ignore them, no fixing that, if you go by this route.
You also get a ton of checked exceptions issues that you'll have to deal with by catching them and rethrowing something appropriate; possibly RuntimeException or similar if you want to disregard the need to deal with them by callers (some RuntimeException is appropriate if you consider any attempt to add a field of a type that isn't naturally comparable 'a bug').
Annotation Processors
This is a lot more complicated: You can stick annotations on a method, and then have an annotation processor that sees these and generates a source file that does what you want. This is more flexible and more 'compile time checked', in that you can e.g. check that things are of an appropriate type, or add support for mentioning a class in the annotation that is an implementation of Comparable<T>, T being compatible with the type of the field you so annotate. You can also annotate methods themselves (e.g. a public Month getBirthMonth() method). I suggest you search the web for an annotation processor tutorial, it'd be a bit much to stuff an example in an SO answer. Expect to spend a few days learning and writing it, it won't be trivial.
[1] This is a largely objective statement. Falsifiable elements: There are no field-based 'lambda accessors'; no foo::fieldName support. Java does not support structural typing and there is no way to refer to things in the language by name alone, only by fully qualified name (you can let the compiler infer things, but the compiler always translates what you write to a fully "named" (package name, type name that the thing you are referring to is in, and finally the name of the method or field) and then sticks that in the class file).
[2] At least in the Netherlands it is somewhat common to split patient populations up by birth month (as a convenient way to split a population into 12 roughly equally sized, mostly arbitrary chunks) e.g. for inviting them in for a checkup or a flu shot or whatnot.

Assuming that the sortBy values and the corresponding getters are known at compile, this would be a good place to use a string switch statement:
Function<Person.String> getter = null;
switch (sortBy) {
case "firstName":
getter = Person::getFirstName; break;
case "lastName":
getter = Person::getLastName; break;
...
}
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(getter));
If you use a recent version of Java (Java 12 and later) you could use a switch expression rather than a switch statement.
Function<Person.String> getter;
getter = switch (sortBy) {
case "firstName" -> Person::getFirstName;
case "lastName" -> Person::getLastName;
...
default -> null;
}
personList.sort(Comparator.comparing(getter));
Note: you should do a better job (than my dodgy code) of dealing with the case where the sortBy value is not recognized.

As keshlam suggested, I think using the reflection API is the best fitting answer to your question, but keep in mind that using it in production code is generally discouraged.
Note: if you add a new Person-attribute which isn't itself Comparable, you'll have to resort to a custom Comparator anyway. With that in mind, you might want to keep the Map<String, Comparator<?>> solution you already have.

Is there a Parameter Tree implementation in Java?

Java program takes a long list of inputs(parameters), churns a bit and spits some output.
I need a way to organize these parameters in a sane way so in the input txt file I want to write them like this:
parameter1 = 12
parameter2 = 10
strategy1.parameter1 = "goofy"
strategy2.parameter4 = 100.0
Then read this txt file, turn it into a Java object I can pass around to objects when I instantiate them.
I now pyqtgraph has ParameterTree which is handy to use; is there something similar in Java? I am sure others must have had the same need so I don't want to reinvent the wheel.
(other tree structures would also be fine, of course, I just wanted something easy to read)

One way is to turn input.txt into input.json:
{
"parameter1": 12,
"parameter2": 10,
"strategy1": {
"parameter1": "goofy"
},
"strategy2": {
"parameter4": 100.0
}
}
Then use Jackson to deserialize input.json into one of these:
A Map<String, Object> instance, which you could navigate in depth to get all your parameters
An instance of some class of your own that mimics input.json's structure, where your parameters would reside
A JsonNode instance that would be the root of the tree
(1) has the advantage that it's easy and you don't have to create any class to read the parameters, however you'd need to traverse the map, downcast the values you get from it, and you'd need to know the keys in advance (keys match json object's attribute names).
(2) has the advantage that everything would be correctly typed upon deserialization; no need to downcast anything, since every type would be a field of your own classes which represent the structure of the parameters. However, if the structure of your input.json file changed, you would need to change the structure of your classes as well.
(3) is the most flexible of all, and I believe it's the option that is closest to what you have in mind, nonetheless is the most tedious to work with, since it's too low-level. Please refer to this article for further details.

4 Key Value HashMap? Array? Best Approach?

I've got loads of the following to implement.
validateParameter(field_name, field_type, field_validationMessage, visibleBoolean);
Instead of having 50-60 of these in a row, is there some form of nested hashmap/4d array I can use to build it up and loop through them?
Whats the best approach for doing something like that?
Thanks!
EDIT: Was 4 items.

What you could do is create a new Class that holds three values. (The type, the boolean, and name, or the fourth value (you didn't list it)). Then, when creating the HashMap, all you have to do is call the method to get your three values. It may seem like more work, but all you would have to do is create a simple loop to go through all of the values you need. Since I don't know exactly what it is that you're trying to do, all I can do is provide an example of what I'm trying to do. Hope it applies to your problem.
Anyways, creating the Class to hold the three(or four) values you need.
For example,
Class Fields{
String field_name;
Integer field_type;
Boolean validationMessageVisible;
Fields(String name, Integer type, Boolean mv) {
// this.field_name = name;
this.field_type = type;
this.validationMessageVisible = mv;
}
Then put them in a HashMap somewhat like this:
HashMap map = new HashMap<String, Triple>();
map.put(LOCAL STRING FOR NAME OF FIELD, new Field(new Integer(YOUR INTEGER),new Boolean(YOUR BOOLEAN)));
NOTE: This is only going to work as long as these three or four values can all be stored together. For example if you need all of the values to be stored separately for whatever reason it may be, then this won't work. Only if they can be grouped together without it affecting the function of the program, that this will work.
This was a quick brainstorm. Not sure if it will work, but think along these lines and I believe it should work out for you.
You may have to make a few edits, but this should get you in the right direction
P.S. Sorry for it being so wordy, just tried to get as many details out as possible.

The other answer is close but you don't need a key in this case.
Just define a class to contain your three fields. Create a List or array of that class. Loop over the list or array calling the method for each combination.

The approach I'd use is to create a POJO (or some POJOs) to store the values as attributes and validate attribute by attribute.
Since many times you're going to have the same validation per attribute type (e.g. dates and numbers can be validated by range, strings can be validated to ensure they´re not null or empty, etc), you could just iterate on these attributes using reflection (or even better, using annotations).
If you need to validate on the POJO level, you can still reuse these attribute-level validators via composition, while you add more specific validations are you´re going up in the abstraction level (going up means basic attributes -> pojos -> pojos that contain other pojos -> etc).
Passing several basic types as parameters of the same method is not good because the parameters themselves don't tell much and you can easily exchange two parameters of the same type by accident in the method call.

2D Array that can hold multiple values with no limits

I am quite new to java currently working on a not-so-simple web browser application in which I would like to record a permanent history file with a 2D array setup with 3 columns containing "Date Viewed", "URL", "How many times this URL has been viewed before".
Currently I have a temporary solution that only saves "URL" which is also used for "Back, Foward" features using an ArrayList.
private List tempHistory = new ArrayList();
I am reading through the Java documentation but I cannot put together a solution, unless I am missing the obvious there is no 2D array as flexible a ArrayList like in Python?

From your description it doesn't sound like you need a 2D array. You just have one dimension -- but of complex data types, right?
So define a HistoryItem class or something with a Date property for date viewed, URL for URL, int for view count.
Then you just want a List<HistoryItem> history = new ArrayList<HistoryItem>().
The reason I don't think you really want a 2D array-like thing is that it could only hold one data type, and you clearly have several data types at work here, like a date and a count. But if you really want a table-like abstraction, try Guava's Table.

No, there is no built-in 2D array type in Java (unless you use primitive arrays).
You could just use a list of lists (List<List>) - however, I think it is almost always better to use a custom type that you put into the list. In your case, you'd create a class HistoryEntry (with fields for "Date viewed", URL etc.), and use List<HistoryEntry>. That way, you get all the benefits a proper type gives you (typechecking, completion in an IDE, ability to put methods into the class etc.).

How do you plan to browse the history then? If you want to search the history for each url later on then ArrayList approach might not be efficient.
I would rather prefer a Map with URL as key.
Map<Url,UrlHistory> browseHistory = new HahMap<Url,UrlHistory> ();
UrlHistory will contains all the fields you want to associate with a url like no. of times page was accessed and all.

Java: Processor costs of converting from object to other data types

I'm working on a Java project where I handle a list of items, where each item has an id of type int and a value of type String. Then I have another type called ItemCollection which internally has the list and exposes methods to add, remove, get items, etc.
The application is a Financial Transaction Gateway, so we're very focused on performance, since the application will receive many transactions per second. My question is:
The cost of converting an String to another type, like Integer, Char, Date, etc. is the same of converting an Object containing an Integer, Char, Date, etc.?
To clarify, currently the value of the Item is handled in String format. The item has a method called getValue() that returns the item's value in String. But sometimes this value has to be converted to another type, for example int. So what I'm planning to do is change the root type of the value to Object and expose methods like getString(), getInt(), getDate(), getChar(), etc., where the value will be converted from Object to the specific data type. Of course, if the value can't be converted will return null/zero/etc.
In your experience, what would be the best approach?
Is the same to convert from Object to int than String to int?

If you need great performance than I cat suggest that it will be much better to use lower level language like C++. Maybe it is appropriate to use functional language like Erlang. If you want to work with Java then you should avoid taged types and use type system provided by the language. Taged classes are not much faster then actual java classes. Tagged classes are outdated programming style in Java. If you need to convert String to Date, for examle, then this operation will be much slower then cast performed by instanceof operator. Also in Java there is Stop the world GC pause, which can be deadly for real time applications.

Based on the level of detail you've provided, my suggestion is: don't do it!.
Find a way to model your data using Java's type system. Avoid type conversions (e.g. String to Integer), and avoid type casting (e.g. (String)someObject).
If you have a question about a specific operation (such as Integer's toString function), then I suggest consulting the documentation or the source code.

Who is producing these objects? Are they not coming in to you in some format such as JSON or XML that you can actually marshal the data to their real types?
For example, if you receive a JSON message of something like:
date: 2012-12-25
acct: 12345
amount: 123.50
then it's at that point where you should be putting them in to the correct types.
It seems like you want to dispatch messages or perform actions on items based on their type, and you're trying to convert them using the type. I hate not to answer your question, but how do you hope to accomplish this? Do you first try to see if the item is a Date? and then if not, try to see if it is a number? What takes precedence?
If you have an Item that needs processing.. and you can (as I said before, by marshalling the input data in to different types, not Strings) get a StringItem and a DateItem, for example, you can use the Visitor pattern.

This depends on what you mean by 'convert'. That is not a precise term of art in Java.
If you mean 'cast', then the answer is that casting is fast. Your ItemCollection class might have a method like this:
public int getInt(int index) {
Object value = getObject(index);
return (Integer)value;
}
The cast will add a few machine instructions.
If you mean something more like 'parse', then the answer is that parsing is hundreds or thousands of times slower than casting, but still fast compared to I/O. If you were parsing, your code might look like:
public int getInt(int index) {
String value = getString(index);
return Integer.parseInt(value);
}
So, what exactly do you mean by 'convert'?