Develop Reference

Which Object Oriented design is a better pick when one subclass calls another?

In my scenario, we offer multiple plans to customers. (planA, planB, planC etc.) planA is lower than planB and planB is lower than planC. A customer can move from lower plan to higher plan but not vice-versa. If a customer is on planA and wants to 'activate' planB, then planA must be cancelled. Essentially, a plan can be 'activated' and 'deactivated'. I had 2 designs in mind.
interface Plan {
activate();
deactivate();
}
This interface will be inherited by each plans' (planA, planB, planC, etc). The activate method would be inherited and look something like this:
activate() {
Plan planToCancel = getLowerGradePlanToCancel()
planToCancel.cancel();
// perform business logic to activate plan.
}
Option B is something similar to strategy pattern: I have 2 interfaces:
interface Activate {
activate();
}
interface Deactivate {
deactivate()
}
Each of the plans will inherit those interfaces. Then my business logic would look something like this:
activatePlan(planName, planToDeactivate) {
Activate activate = Factory.getActivateInstanceForPlan(planName);
DeActivate dectivate = Factory.getActivateInstanceForPlan(planToDeactivate);
deactivate.deactivate();
activate.activate();
}
Of the two designs which one is more appropriate (Object Oriented) and why ? The only thing in code that is likely to change is more plans will be added in future.

You have 3 plans. Plan C can't go higher and similarly plan A can't go lower. Plan B can do both operations. Use one interface and put activate and deactivate methods there. You already mentioned that on option A. Use template pattern there to give an opportunity to change their behaviours for your plans. This will be appropriate if you will add another plans later on. This will help you a lot when you add another plans.
If you will have only three plans, then second option is more appropriate. Since you have only 3 plans and only one of them using activate and deactivate together, then you don't need to implement both of the methods, interfaces. This will decrease the dependencies of your code.
Pick the best choice for your case.

I have a different approach in mind where you have a class that manages all the plans, while plan interface is encapsulated and only reveals the necessary of its API.
I think this approach will have minimal code modification for each added Plan, moreover, it can prevent user from making mistakes (e.g. downgrading a plan).
The essential interfaces:
interface Plan {
public Plan next();
public boolean isActivated();
// for debug purposes
public String planDescription();
}
interface PlansManager {
public Plan nextPlan(Plan current);
}
The basic idea is to have some SemiConcretePlan class which implements the static (mutual) behaviour in all plans, the public API is next & isActivated while activate and cancel methods private (you don't want the user to cancel a plan without switching to the next or to activated a cancelled one be keeping a previous Plan pointer on it) and only the PlansManager or the Plan itself will handle the activation and cancellation, PlansManager activates the first plan and returns it and next method uses PlansManager to get the next and only the SemiConcertePlan activate the current and cancels the previous Plan.
Here the SemiConcertePlan:
abstract class SemiConcretePlan implements Plan {
private PlansManager m_plansManager;
private boolean m_isActivated;
private int m_id;
private static int s_idGenerator = 0, s_firstActivatedId = 1;
public SemiConcretePlan(PlansManager plansManager){
m_plansManager = plansManager;
m_id = generateId();
m_isActivated = (m_id == s_firstActivatedId);
}
private int generateId() {
return ++s_idGenerator;
}
private void activatePlan() {
this.m_isActivated = true;
}
private void cancelPlan() {
this.m_isActivated = false;
}
public boolean isActivated() {
return this.m_isActivated;
}
public Plan next() {
this.cancelPlan();
SemiConcretePlan nextPlan = (SemiConcretePlan) m_plansManager.nextPlan(this);
nextPlan.activatePlan();
return nextPlan;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
if (this == other)
return true;
if (other == null || !(other instanceof SemiConcretePlan) || this.hashCode() != other.hashCode())
return false;
SemiConcretePlan otherPlan = ((SemiConcretePlan) other);
if (m_id != ((SemiConcretePlan) otherPlan).m_id)
return false;
return true;
}
public abstract int hashCode();
public abstract String planDescription();
}
planDescription method is an example of dynamic method, hashCode is needed for class PlansManager to hash plans in map which map current plan to higher (next) plan.
Here is the AscedingPlansManager class:
class AscedingPlansManager implements PlansManager{
private List<Plan> m_plansList;
private Map<Plan, Plan> m_planToHigherPlanMapping;
public AscedingPlansManager() {
m_plansList = new LinkedList();
m_planToHigherPlanMapping = new HashMap();
Plan[] plans = {
new PlanA(this),
new PlanB(this),
new PlanC(this),
new PlanD(this)
};
for(int i = 0; i < plans.length - 1; ++i) {
m_plansList.add(plans[i]);
m_planToHigherPlanMapping.put(plans[i], plans[i+1]);
}
m_plansList.add(plans[plans.length - 1]);
m_planToHigherPlanMapping.put(plans[plans.length - 1], plans[plans.length - 1]);
}
public Plan nextPlan(Plan current) {
return m_planToHigherPlanMapping.getOrDefault(current, null);
}
private void activatePlan(Plan plan) {
try {
Method privateActivateMethod = SemiConcretePlan.class.getDeclaredMethod("activatePlan");
privateActivateMethod.setAccessible(true);
privateActivateMethod.invoke(plan);
} catch(Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void cancelAll() {
for(Plan plan: m_plansList)
try {
Method privateActivateMethod = SemiConcretePlan.class.getDeclaredMethod("cancelPlan");
privateActivateMethod.setAccessible(true);
privateActivateMethod.invoke(plan);
} catch(Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public Plan firstPlan() {
Plan first = m_plansList.get(0);
this.activatePlan(first);
return first;
}
public boolean[] plansToActivationState() {
boolean[] ret = new boolean[m_plansList.size()];
int index = 0;
for(Plan plan: m_plansList)
ret[index++] = plan.isActivated();
return ret;
}
}
I know that this is huge code, but I think it will make add plans easy, you will only need to change the hashCode method, the sequence of the plans can be changed in the constructor of AscedingPlansManager or creating a different manger class from scratch.
Here is the full code, you can see how little changes I needed to do for class PlanD:
import java.util.;
import java.lang.reflect.;
interface Plan {
public Plan next();
public boolean isActivated();
// for debug purposes
public String planDescription();
}
interface PlansManager {
public Plan nextPlan(Plan current);
}
abstract class SemiConcretePlan implements Plan {
private PlansManager m_plansManager;
private boolean m_isActivated;
private int m_id;
private static int s_idGenerator = 0, s_firstActivatedId = 1;
public SemiConcretePlan(PlansManager plansManager){
m_plansManager = plansManager;
m_id = generateId();
m_isActivated = (m_id == s_firstActivatedId);
}
private int generateId() {
return ++s_idGenerator;
}
private void activatePlan() {
this.m_isActivated = true;
}
private void cancelPlan() {
this.m_isActivated = false;
}
public boolean isActivated() {
return this.m_isActivated;
}
public Plan next() {
this.cancelPlan();
SemiConcretePlan nextPlan = (SemiConcretePlan) m_plansManager.nextPlan(this);
nextPlan.activatePlan();
return nextPlan;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
if (this == other)
return true;
if (other == null || !(other instanceof SemiConcretePlan) || this.hashCode() != other.hashCode())
return false;
SemiConcretePlan otherPlan = ((SemiConcretePlan) other);
if (m_id != ((SemiConcretePlan) otherPlan).m_id)
return false;
return true;
}
public abstract int hashCode();
public abstract String planDescription();
}
class AscedingPlansManager implements PlansManager{
private List<Plan> m_plansList;
private Map<Plan, Plan> m_planToHigherPlanMapping;
public AscedingPlansManager() {
m_plansList = new LinkedList();
m_planToHigherPlanMapping = new HashMap();
Plan[] plans = {
new PlanA(this),
new PlanB(this),
new PlanC(this),
new PlanD(this)
};
for(int i = 0; i < plans.length - 1; ++i) {
m_plansList.add(plans[i]);
m_planToHigherPlanMapping.put(plans[i], plans[i+1]);
}
m_plansList.add(plans[plans.length - 1]);
m_planToHigherPlanMapping.put(plans[plans.length - 1], plans[plans.length - 1]);
}
public Plan nextPlan(Plan current) {
return m_planToHigherPlanMapping.getOrDefault(current, null);
}
private void activatePlan(Plan plan) {
try {
Method privateActivateMethod = SemiConcretePlan.class.getDeclaredMethod("activatePlan");
privateActivateMethod.setAccessible(true);
privateActivateMethod.invoke(plan);
} catch(Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void cancelAll() {
for(Plan plan: m_plansList)
try {
Method privateActivateMethod = SemiConcretePlan.class.getDeclaredMethod("cancelPlan");
privateActivateMethod.setAccessible(true);
privateActivateMethod.invoke(plan);
} catch(Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public Plan firstPlan() {
Plan first = m_plansList.get(0);
this.activatePlan(first);
return first;
}
public boolean[] plansToActivationState() {
boolean[] ret = new boolean[m_plansList.size()];
int index = 0;
for(Plan plan: m_plansList)
ret[index++] = plan.isActivated();
return ret;
}
}
class PlanA extends SemiConcretePlan {
public PlanA(PlansManager plansManager) {
super(plansManager);
}
public int hashCode() {
return 1;
}
public String planDescription() {
return "This is PlanA";
}
}
class PlanB extends SemiConcretePlan {
public PlanB(PlansManager plansManager) {
super(plansManager);
}
public int hashCode() {
return 2;
}
public String planDescription() {
return "This is PlanB";
}
}
class PlanC extends SemiConcretePlan {
public PlanC(PlansManager plansManager) {
super(plansManager);
}
public int hashCode() {
return 3;
}
public String planDescription() {
return "This is PlanC";
}
}
class PlanD extends SemiConcretePlan {
public PlanD(PlansManager plansManager) {
super(plansManager);
}
public int hashCode() {
return 4;
}
public String planDescription() {
return "This is PlanD";
}
}
public class Main{
public static void main(String []args){
AscedingPlansManager ascedingPlansManager = new AscedingPlansManager();
Plan currentPlan = ascedingPlansManager.firstPlan();
int i = 0, maxIterations = 5;
while((++i) <= maxIterations) {
System.out.println(currentPlan.planDescription());
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(ascedingPlansManager.plansToActivationState()));
currentPlan = currentPlan.next();
}
ascedingPlansManager.cancelAll();
System.out.println("After canceling all plans");
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(ascedingPlansManager.plansToActivationState()));
}
}
I still not sure of my implementation, I usually access private method in c++ with friend modifier, if you want to discuss anything feel free to do so.

How to return false if a java collection contains two identical elements

I have a Collection<Event>. Event looks something like this
public class Event {
private Integer id;
private LocalDateTime localDateTime;
// getters, setters omitted
}
Each Event in that Collection needs to have a unique id and localDateTime. How can I do that check using stream API and return true if the condition is satisfied?

This is the Event class you would need;
class Event {
private Integer id;
private LocalDateTime localDateTime;
public Integer getId() {
return id;
}
public LocalDateTime getLocalDateTime() {
return localDateTime;
}
public void setId(Integer id) {
this.id = id;
}
public void setLocalDateTime(LocalDateTime localDateTime) {
this.localDateTime = localDateTime;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
Event event = (Event) o;
return id.equals(event.id) &&
localDateTime.equals(event.localDateTime);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(id, localDateTime);
}
public static boolean hasDuplicates(List<Event> events) {
/*
return events
.stream()
.noneMatch(e -> events
.stream()
.filter(ev -> ev.equals(e)).count() > 1);
*/
return events.stream()
.distinct()
.count() != events.size(); // Kudos to #Holger for this approach.
}
}
This hasDuplicates is a static function, so it won't make any affect for your object creation. You can use it as a utility method to check duplicates though. You would only need single line of check.

First thing first, override the method equals() and hashcode() and write it like so:
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o){
if (o instanceof Event){
Event e = (Event) o;
return e.id.equals(this.id) && e.localDateTime.equals(this.localDateTime);
}
else return false;
}
#Override
public int hashCode(){
return Objects.hash(id,localDateTime); //this is the default implementation, up to you to implement it in a better way
}
Then, you can use the stream like this to check if there are any duplicates:
public boolean checkAllUnique(Collection<Event> col){
return col.stream().allMatch(new HashSet<>()::add);
}

import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class Event {
private static final AtomicInteger idGenerator = new AtomicInteger(1000);
private Integer id;
private LocalDateTime localDateTime;
public Event(){
id = idGenerator.getAndIncrement();
}
// getters, setters omitted
}
Code Test
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++ i){
System.out.println(new Event().getId());
}
}
}
Output
1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009

You can use two HashSet as backing collections to store unique elements and iterate over the list of events as:
public boolean duplicateExists(List<Event> eventList) {
Set<Integer> ids = new HashSet<>();
Set<LocalDateTime> localDateTimes = new HashSet<>();
return eventList.stream()
.anyMatch(event -> !ids.add(event.getId()) ||
!localDateTimes.add(event.getLocalDateTime()));
}

How do I compare the value of an Enum with all possible values of the Enum in an Enum method and avoid missing return statement?

I'm just learning about enumerations in Java. When I run the code below I get an error which I also reproduce below. Basically, my question is: when I define a method in an Enum, and in that method I want to check the value of the enum so that I can do something based on that value, how do I perform this check?
Below I have an Enum with three possible values, and in the method getNext, I have three if statements comparing the value of this Enum with each of the three possible values. But I still get an error saying that there is a path without a return.
package enumerations;
enum TrafficLightColor2 {
RED(12), GREEN(10), YELLOW(2);
private int waitTime;
TrafficLightColor2(int waitTime) {
this.waitTime = waitTime;
}
int getWaitTime() {
return waitTime;
}
TrafficLightColor2 getNext() {
if (this.equals(TrafficLightColor2.GREEN)) {
return TrafficLightColor2.YELLOW;
}
if (this.equals(TrafficLightColor2.YELLOW)) {
return TrafficLightColor2.RED;
}
if (this.equals(TrafficLightColor2.RED)) {
return TrafficLightColor2.GREEN;
}
}
}
// A computerized traffic light.
class TrafficLightSimulator2 implements Runnable {
private Thread thrd; // holds the thread that runs the simulation
private TrafficLightColor2 tlc; // holds the traffic light color
boolean stop = false; // set to true to stop the simulation
boolean changed = false; // true when the light has changed
TrafficLightSimulator2(TrafficLightColor2 init) {
tlc = init;
thrd = new Thread(this);
thrd.start();
}
TrafficLightSimulator2() {
tlc = TrafficLightColor2.RED;
thrd = new Thread(this);
thrd.start();
}
// Start up the light.
public void run() {
while (!stop) {
try {
Thread.sleep(tlc.getWaitTime());
} catch (InterruptedException exc) {
System.out.println(exc);
}
changeColor();
}
}
// Change color.
synchronized void changeColor() {
tlc = tlc.getNext();
changed = true;
notify(); // signal that the light has changed
}
// Wait until a light change occurs.
synchronized void waitForChange() {
try {
while (!changed)
wait(); // wait for light to change
changed = false;
} catch (InterruptedException exc) {
System.out.println(exc);
}
}
// Return current color.
synchronized TrafficLightColor2 getColor() {
return tlc;
}
// Stop the traffic light.
synchronized void cancel() {
stop = true;
}
}
class TrafficLightDemo2 {
public static void main(String args[]) {
TrafficLightSimulator tl =
new TrafficLightSimulator(TrafficLightColor.GREEN);
for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
System.out.println(tl.getColor());
tl.waitForChange();
}
tl.cancel();
}
}
I get the error
$ javac enumerations/TrafficLightDemo2.java
enumerations/TrafficLightDemo2.java:26: error: missing return statement
}
^
1 error

TrafficLightColor2 getNext() {
if (this.equals(TrafficLightColor2.GREEN)) {
return TrafficLightColor2.YELLOW;
}
if (this.equals(TrafficLightColor2.YELLOW)) {
return TrafficLightColor2.RED;
}
if (this.equals(TrafficLightColor2.RED)) {
return TrafficLightColor2.GREEN;
}
}
This method doesn't return the value if all 3 if are false.
Add return at the and or better throw an error, e.g.
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unsupported enum")

The advantage of using instance fields in enum classes is that you can associate implementation details easily with your constants that are independent from your API. In other words, you can easily associate data with your enum constants that would admit an elegant solution that you aren't forever married to in the case that, for example, you need to add a new enum constant.
So, you can greatly simplify your implementation while fulfilling the same contract as follows:
enum TrafficLightColor2 {
RED(2, 12),
GREEN(0, 10),
YELLOW(1, 2);
private int order; // implementation detail; non-exported
private int waitTime;
TrafficLightColor2(int ord, int waitTime) {
this.order = ord;
this.waitTime = waitTime;
}
int getWaitTime() {
return waitTime;
}
TrafficLightColor2 getNext() {
final int nextColor = (this.order + 1) % 3; // magic numbers introduce fragility
return Arrays.stream(TrafficLight2.values())
.filter(e -> e.order == nextColor)
.findAny()
.get();
}
}
This version has some advantages to your original implementation: it is easier to maintain since, if enum constants are added, the compiler will force you to add an order value. In the original, if you forgot to modify your if-else-block after adding a constant, your program would continue to work but it would not provide the correct behavior. And because the implementation of the order is hidden, you are free to remove it or change it to some other implementation at any time without affecting the correctness of your API.

Have you considered including the next state along with the declared values?
public enum TrafficLightColor2 {
RED(12, "GREEN"), GREEN(10, "YELLOW"), YELLOW(2, "RED");
int waitTime;
String nextState;
Configurations(int waitTime, String nextState) {
this.waitTime = waitTime;
this.nextState = nextState;
}
public int getWaitTime() {
return waitTime;
}
public String getNextState() {
return nextState;
}
}
With this you can get the next state as
TrafficLightColor2 trafficLightColor = TrafficLightColor2.GREEN;
System.out.println(TrafficLightColor2.valueOf(trafficLightColor.getNextState()));

How to update multiple instances of a class at once in Java

I'm writing a game-like program and it has a class that has to act as an item. Normally I would just keep it as an item but every one has to wait 10 game-days in order to start doing what it's meant to. Is there a way to update the days in all the classes at once? I've tried to use a static method but you can't use instance variables in those so it didn't work. I've thought about possibly making a code that expands every time a new instance is made but I can't find anything i can understand about it. Is there any way to add to a method, make this an item, anything? This is what I have at the moment:
public class Tree
{
private boolean fullGrown;
private int day;
private int APDay; //apples per day
private static int totalApples;
public Tree()
{
fullGrown = false;
day = 0;
APDay = (int) (Math.random()*2) + 4;
}
public void updateDay()
{
day = day + 1;
if (day == 10) fullGrown = true;
if (fullGrown == true) totalApples = totalApples + APDay;
}
public void skipGrowth()
{
fullGrown = true;
}
}
Although this works, you have to update the day for every instance separately. I need a way to update all the instances at the same time. This will also be used by a code and not the actual interface, just in case that's helpful.

Observer and factory pattern looks like a good candidate here.
I hope the code below explain rest to you
public interface DayEventListener {
public void onDay10(DayEvent DayEvent);
}
public class DayEvent {
//... pojo
}
public class AwesomeGame {
private List<DayEventListener> dayEventListenerList = new ArrayList<>();
public void addDayListener(DayEventListener del) {
dayEventListener.add(del);
}
public void fireDay10Event(DayEvent de) {
for(DayEventListener del : dayEventListenerList) {
del.onDay10(de);
}
}
public class Item implements DayEventListener {
//All constructors should be private
public static Item buildItem() {
Item Item = new Item();
awesomeGame.addDayEventListener(Item);
return item;
}
}

so I did some research and while I was working on another project I discovered that i could use a vector to keep track of all my instances, so here is that class:
import java.util.Vector;
public class catcher
{
private static Vector allInstances = new Vector();
private int catchLeft;
private String name;
public catcher(String name)
{
catchLeft = Integer.parseInt(name.substring(name.indexOf("#") + 1, name.length()));
catchLeft--;
this.name = name;
if (catchLeft != 0) allInstances.add(this);
}
public static synchronized Vector getAllInstances()
{
return (Vector) (allInstances.clone());
}
public boolean check(String name, boolean change)
{
boolean foo;
if (this.name.equals(name))
{
if (change == true) catchLeft--;
foo = true;
}
else foo = false;
if (catchLeft <= 0) this.finalize();
return foo;
}
public void finalize()
{
allInstances.removeElement(this);
}
public static void clear()
{
allInstances.clear();
}
}
now that I have a record of all the instances, I used this method in another class to assess all the instances:
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.Vector;
public class recipe
{
private boolean checkForList(String name, boolean add)
{
Iterator list = catcher.getAllInstances().iterator();
boolean running = true;
boolean booleanReturn = true;
while (running == true)
{
if (list.hasNext())
{
catcher Foo = (catcher) (list.next());
if (Foo.check(name, false) == true)
{
Foo.check(name, true);
running = false;
booleanReturn = true;
}
}
else
{
if (add == true) new catcher(name);
running = false;
booleanReturn = false;
}
}
return booleanReturn;
}
}
I'm sure that this can be modified to update the classes instead of just accessing them.

Asynchronous Iterator

I have the following code:
while(slowIterator.hasNext()) {
performLengthTask(slowIterator.next());
}
Because both iterator and task are slow it makes sense to put those into separate threads. Here is a quick and dirty attempt for an Iterator wrapper:
class AsyncIterator<T> implements Iterator<T> {
private final BlockingQueue<T> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<T>(100);
private AsyncIterator(final Iterator<T> delegate) {
new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
while(delegate.hasNext()) {
queue.put(delegate.next()); // try/catch removed for brevity
}
}
}.start();
}
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return true;
}
#Override
public T next() {
return queue.take(); // try/catch removed for brevity
}
// ... remove() throws UnsupportedOperationException
}
However this implementation lacks support for "hasNext()". It would be ok of course for the hasNext() method to block until it knows whether to return true or not. I could have a peek object in my AsyncIterator and I could change hasNext() to take an object from the queue and have next() return this peek. But this would cause hasNext() to block indefinitely if the delegate iterator's end has been reached.
Instead of utilizing the ArrayBlockingQueue I could of course do thread communication myself:
private static class AsyncIterator<T> implements Iterator<T> {
private final Queue<T> queue = new LinkedList<T>();
private boolean delegateDone = false;
private AsyncIterator(final Iterator<T> delegate) {
new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (delegate.hasNext()) {
final T next = delegate.next();
synchronized (AsyncIterator.this) {
queue.add(next);
AsyncIterator.this.notify();
}
}
synchronized (AsyncIterator.this) {
delegateDone = true;
AsyncIterator.this.notify();
}
}
}.start();
}
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
synchronized (this) {
while (queue.size() == 0 && !delegateDone) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new Error(e);
}
}
}
return queue.size() > 0;
}
#Override
public T next() {
return queue.remove();
}
#Override
public void remove() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
However all the extra synchronizations, waits and notifys don't really make the code any more readable and it is easy to hide a race condition somewhere.
Any better ideas?
Update
Yes I do know about common observer/observable patterns. However the usual implementations don't foresee an end to the flow of data and they are not iterators.
I specifically want an iterator here, because actually the above mentioned loop exists in an external library and it wants an Iterator.

This is a tricky one, but I think I got the right answer this time. (I deleted my first answer.)
The answer is to use a sentinel. I haven't tested this code, and I removed try/catches for clarity:
public class AsyncIterator<T> implements Iterator<T> {
private BlockingQueue<T> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<T>(100);
private T sentinel = (T) new Object();
private T next;
private AsyncIterator(final Iterator<T> delegate) {
new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (delegate.hasNext()) {
queue.put(delegate.next());
}
queue.put(sentinel);
}
}.start();
}
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
if (next != null) {
return true;
}
next = queue.take(); // blocks if necessary
if (next == sentinel) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
#Override
public T next() {
T tmp = next;
next = null;
return tmp;
}
}
The insight here is that hasNext() needs to block until the next item is ready. It also needs some kind of quit condition, and it can't use an empty queue or a boolean flag for that because of threading issues. A sentinel solves the problem without any locking or synchronization.
Edit: cached "next" so hasNext() can be called more than once.

Or save yourself the headache and use RxJava:
import java.util.Iterator;
import rx.Observable;
import rx.Scheduler;
import rx.observables.BlockingObservable;
import rx.schedulers.Schedulers;
public class RxAsyncIteratorExample {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final Iterator<Integer> slowIterator = new SlowIntegerIterator(3, 7300);
// the scheduler you use here will depend on what behaviour you
// want but io is probably what you want
Iterator<Integer> async = asyncIterator(slowIterator, Schedulers.io());
while (async.hasNext()) {
performLengthTask(async.next());
}
}
public static <T> Iterator<T> asyncIterator(
final Iterator<T> slowIterator,
Scheduler scheduler) {
final Observable<T> tObservable = Observable.from(new Iterable<T>() {
#Override
public Iterator<T> iterator() {
return slowIterator;
}
}).subscribeOn(scheduler);
return BlockingObservable.from(tObservable).getIterator();
}
/**
* Uninteresting implementations...
*/
public static void performLengthTask(Integer integer)
throws InterruptedException {
log("Running task for " + integer);
Thread.sleep(10000l);
log("Finished task for " + integer);
}
private static class SlowIntegerIterator implements Iterator<Integer> {
private int count;
private final long delay;
public SlowIntegerIterator(int count, long delay) {
this.count = count;
this.delay = delay;
}
#Override
public boolean hasNext() {
return count > 0;
}
#Override
public Integer next() {
try {
log("Starting long production " + count);
Thread.sleep(delay);
log("Finished long production " + count);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
return count--;
}
#Override
public void remove() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
private static final long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
private static void log(String s) {
double time = ((System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime) / 1000d);
System.out.println(time + ": " + s);
}
}
Gives me:
0.031: Starting long production 3
7.332: Finished long production 3
7.332: Starting long production 2
7.333: Running task for 3
14.633: Finished long production 2
14.633: Starting long production 1
17.333: Finished task for 3
17.333: Running task for 2
21.934: Finished long production 1
27.334: Finished task for 2
27.334: Running task for 1
37.335: Finished task for 1