Develop Reference

How I can access and add value from the list which is nested in the hashmap and list in Java

I am trying to add value for the List which is stored in HashMap and that has one parent List.
When I try to do so I get "The method get in type is not compatible with the List"
I am trying the following code, logic is :
If I get the matching value of tID in the txnValue List I am just adding the "Values" List otherwise I am creating the new HashMap.
List < HashMap > txnvalues = new ArrayList < HashMap > ();
for (LinkedHashMap < String, Object > linkedHashMap: resultset) {
HashMap data = new HashMap < > ();
HashMap attrData = new HashMap < > ();
List values = new ArrayList < > ();
data.put("values", new ArrayList < > ());
attrData.put("attrID", linkedHashMap.get("ID"));
attrData.put("attrVal", linkedHashMap.get("VAL"));
String txnID = linkedHashMap.get("T_ID").toString();
if (!txnvalues.stream().anyMatch(list -> list.containsValue(txnID))) {
data.put("tID", linkedHashMap.get("T_ID"));
values.add(attrData);
data.put("Values", values);
txnvalues.add(data);
} else {
txnvalues.get("Values").add(attrData); // this Line throws error
}
}
Example :
[{
"tID":123,
"Values":[{attrID:1,attrVal:123}]
}]
//Here If linkedHashmap.get("T_ID") = 123 which matches with tID then I want to add data in the Values
[{
"tID":123,
"Values":[{attrID:1,attrVal:123},{attrID:11,attrVal:467}]
}]
//If it doesn't match then I want to create new Hashmap and update txnValues Like this
[{
"tID":123,
"Values":[{attrID:1,attrVal:123},{attrID:2,attrVal:3435}]
},
{
"tID":456,
"Values":[{attrID:2,attrVal:233}]
}
]

I decided to parameterize all of your various iterables. Below is the parameterized code.
List<HashMap<String, List<HashMap<String, Object>>>> txnvalues = new ArrayList<HashMap<String, List<HashMap<String, Object>>>>();
for (LinkedHashMap<String, Object> linkedHashMap : resultset) {//Error here
HashMap<String, List<HashMap<String, Object>>> data = new HashMap<String, List<HashMap<String, Object>>>();
HashMap<String, Object> attrData = new HashMap<String, Object>();
List<HashMap<String, Object>> values = new ArrayList<HashMap<String, Object>>();
data.put("values", new ArrayList<>());
attrData.put("attrID", linkedHashMap.get("ID"));
attrData.put("attrVal", linkedHashMap.get("VAL"));
String txnID = linkedHashMap.get("T_ID").toString();
if (!txnvalues.stream().anyMatch(list -> list.containsValue(txnID))) {
data.put("tID", linkedHashMap.get("T_ID")); //Error here
values.add(attrData);
data.put("Values", values);
txnvalues.add(data);
} else {
txnvalues.get("Values").add(attrData); //Error here
}
}
First, you have multiple errors in your code such as trying to put a String key and Object value into data, which is a HashMap that only takes a String key and a List(of HashMaps of Strings and Objects) value. Another such is trying to get an item from txnvalues by a String, when txnvalues is a List and therefore requires an integer index parameter.
Second, you have a variable here which is never defined: resultset. We don't know what it is or how it is used, since it's never referenced elsewhere.
Third, there are many many ways to handle nested sets. This >-> List<HashMap<String, List<HashMap<String, Object>>>> is simply horrible.
Please re-write your code in a way that is readable, parameterized, and can properly compile without errors. Just parameterizing will help you keep track of which iterables take which parameters and will help prevent the problem you had when you came here for help.

I'm probably late with this answer. Nevertheless, I'll introduce a possible remedy accompanied by a detailed explanation.
At the first glance, such a deeply nested collection seems contrived and incomprehensible. But problems that you can see in this code aren't something unusual, they could be observed in many questions on StackOverflow, and in many repositories. The only difference is in concentration.
Let's try to examine it closely. A map is a data structure that is commonly misused by beginners because it allows to combine objects of different nature. I am pretty sure that provided code models something more or less tangible. Did you notice that PO tries to access an entry that has a string key called "id"? That's a clear indicator that collections here are used in place of objects.
If I say object graph can be far more complex, it probably wouldn't be something new. But how to reason about the code that is written in such a way?
Let's step aside for a moment and consider the following task:
there are a number of sailboats, you need to determine which of them will win the race and return its name as a result;
input provided as a plain text and consists of the following parameters: unique name, displacement, and weight (only these three for simplicity);
the speed of the vessel depends on its displacement and weight (i.e. formula is provided, we need only parse the values);
It is very likely that somebody can come up with such a solution:
create a Map<String, List<Double>>, where the key is a sailboat's name and the value is a list that contains displacement and weight;
then just iterate over the entry set, apply the formula and so find the fastest vessel.
Only a couple of methods, and it seems that a separate class for a sailboat will allegedly increase the overall complexity and amount of code. That's a common delusion for many students. The creation of a separate class will provide a logical structure to the code and will pay off if you would wish to extend or reuse it. Note that not only attributes of the sailboat must belong to this class but also the methods that allow to compute sailboat's speed and compare sailboats based on it.
Decomposition is a skill and it has to be exercised. And for those of you who didn't realize from the beginning that a sailboat in the previous example has to be represented by an object, I advise to try the next exercise: describe a university, a candy shop, a grocery store, a cat, anything you like but without using objects. First, think about a couple of use-cases that entail accessing some properties of the elements of the system that you're trying to model. Then draw diagrams and write the code using warriors collections and arrays, pay attention that the more complex your system becomes, the more cumbersome become all nested maps and lists, which make you write your code like this:
map.get(something).get(something).add(somethingElse);
And then, when you see the problems, you are ready to implement the classes that make sense in your domain model and compare the two approaches.
Disclaimer: understanding decomposition is a crucial thing but class design is a very broad topic, there are lots of things to study in this area like classic principles and design patterns. But before diving into these topics, you have to have a firm understanding of decomposition and OOP. Without this knowledge even with an object-oriented approach, your solution could become convoluted and difficult to manage. But this is a step in the right direction. The fact alone that you are using an object-oriented language doesn't automatically make your solution object-oriented. It's a skill, and it has to be exercised.
It was a very long digression, now let's get to the point.
As I already said, I'm convinced that the post author had in mind some kind of natural use case. Instead of names that describe the system in this maze of data structures we can see only dump get() and put(). But there's a clue in the usage of map. An id as a key is a clear indicator that it has to be an object which is substituted by a map.
That is a start of a journey, I'll try to provide a scenario that makes sense (at least a bit) and pieces of a system that fits into a structure depicted in the scheme provided at the start of this post.
Let's consider an organization that sells something (I'm not trying to guess what was the author's intention, but providing a use case that will allow to reason about the code). There are a bunch of departments, each with a unique identifier.
Each department has a collection of products that it sells. Department gets different products from different suppliers. And in turn, each product has a unique id a collection of suppliers represented by plain string (it looks contrived, but keep in mind it's just an illustration of what the code does).
As a use-case, let's assume that the company launches a new product and it must be accessible in all its departments. The code checks whether the department has this product already, if not, the product will be added with a default set of suppliers, otherwise it merges the existing set of suppliers and the default one.
As you can see the code in the main method is very concise. Note that all the miscellanies of data structures are still there, but we are not accessing them directly. As the information expert principle suggests, this logic is hidden inside the objects. That makes this solution reusable and less error-prone.
public static void main(String[] args) {
// this list is a rough equivalent of the "List<Map<String, List<Map<String, Object>>>> txnvalues"
List<Department> departments =
List.of(new Department("dep11"), new Department("dep12"));
Product newProd = new Product("id123"); // a NEW Product with id = "id123"
newProd.addAllSuppliers(List.of("supplierA", "supplierB"));
for (Department dep: departments) { // launching the new Product
dep.mergeProduct(newProd);
}
}
public class Department {
private final String departmentId;
private final Map<String, Product> idToProduct;
public Department(String departmentName) {
this.departmentId = departmentName;
this.idToProduct = new HashMap<>();
}
public void mergeProduct(Product prod) {
idToProduct.merge(prod.getId(), prod, Product::merge);
}
public void mergeAllProducts(Iterable<Product> products) {
for (Product prod: products) {
mergeProduct(prod);
}
}
public void addProduct(Product prod) {
idToProduct.put(prod.getId(), prod);
}
public void addAllProducts(Iterable<Product> products) {
for (Product prod: products) {
addProduct(prod);
}
}
public String getId() {
return departmentId;
}
public Map<String, Product> getIdToProduct() {
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(idToProduct);
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o instanceof Department other) {
return departmentId.equals(other.departmentId);
} else return false;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(departmentId);
}
}
public class Product {
private final String productId;
private final Set<String> suppliers;
public Product(String id) {
this.productId = id;
this.suppliers = new HashSet<>();
}
public boolean addSupplier(String newSup) {
return suppliers.add(newSup);
}
public boolean addAllSuppliers(Collection<String> newSup) {
return suppliers.addAll(newSup);
}
public Product merge(Product other) {
if (!this.equals(other)) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
Product merged = new Product(productId);
merged.addAllSuppliers(this.suppliers);
merged.addAllSuppliers(other.suppliers);
return merged;
}
public String getId() {
return productId;
}
public Set<String> getSuppliers() {
return Collections.unmodifiableSet(suppliers);
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o instanceof Product other) {
return this.productId.equals(other.productId);
} else return false;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(productId);
}
}
Further steps:
First of all make sure that you don't have gaps in the core concepts of OOP: encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism.
Draw before you start to code, it's not necessary to create a full-blown UML diagram. Even a rough set of named boxes with arrows will help you understand better how your system is structured and how its parts interact with each other.
Read and apply. Extend your knowledge gradually and try to apply it. High cohesion, Low coupling, SOLID, and lots of helpful reading can be found here, for instance this recent post
Write a bit, test a bit: don't wait until your code became a beast. Write a bit and give it a try, add something else and take a look at how these parts fit together.

In the else block, you call get method of txnvalues which a list of HashMaps and thus it expects an integer index. I believe you assume that at this point you've got a reference to the HashMap to which you would add the values. But you don't.
So, you need to find the index where to add the values, which means you have to look through the txnvalues list again.
For this reason, you should use a different approach:
txnvalues.stream()
.filter(m -> m.get("tID").equals(txnID))
.findFirst()
.ifPresentOrElse(
m -> m.get("Values").add(attrData),
() -> {
HashMap data = new HashMap<>();
// Other stuff to fill the data
txnvalues.add(data);
}
);
Here .filter(m -> m.get("tID").equals(txnID)) corresponds to your .anyMatch(list -> list.containsValue(txnID)) (the parameter list is actually instance of HashMap).
I changed the condition: according to your data sample, you looking for Map which has txnID value for the "tID" key, therefore getting the value of this key is faster than looking through all the values in the HashMap. (It may return null.)
So filter will return only the entries which contain match the required value of the "tID" key. Then .findFirst() “returns” the reference to that HashMap. Now .ifPresentOrElse performs the actions you want:
m.get("Values").add(attrData) into the list; this corresponds your one line of code in the else block;
the other code is what you had in the if block: if nothing is found, create the new instance.

How can I replace object in java collection?

I am trying to replace element in collection with new modified version. Below is short code that aims to demonstrate what I'd like to achieve.
The whole idea is that I have one object that consists of collections of other objects. At some point in time I am expecting that this objects in collections (in my example phones) might require some modifications and I'd like to modify the code in one place only.
I know that in order to update the object's attributes I can use setters while iterating through the collection as demonstrated below. But maybe there is better, more general way to achieve that.
public class Customer {
private int id;
private Collection<Phone> phoneCollection;
public Customer() {
phoneCollection = new ArrayList<>();
}
//getters and setters
}
and Phone class
public class Phone {
private int id;
private String number;
private String name;
//getters and setters
}
and
public static void main(String[] args) {
Customer c = new Customer();
c.addPhone(new Phone(1, "12345", "aaa"));
c.addPhone(new Phone(2, "34567", "bbb"));
System.out.println(c);
Phone p = new Phone(2, "9999999", "new name");
Collection<Phone> col = c.getPhoneCollection();
for (Phone phone : col) {
if (phone.getId() == p.getId()) {
// This is working fine
// phone.setNumber(p.getNumber());
// phone.setName(p.getName());
// But I'd like to replace whole object if possible and this is not working, at least not that way
phone = p;
}
}
System.out.println(c);
}
}
Is this possible to achieve what I want?
I tried copy constructor idea and other methods I found searching the net but none of them was working like I would expect.
EDIT 1
After reading some comments I got an idea
I added the following method to my Phone class
public static void replace(Phone org, Phone dst){
org.setName(dst.getName());
org.setNumber(dst.getNumber());
}
and now my foreach part looks like that
for (Phone phone : col) {
if (phone.getId() == p.getId()) {
Phone.replace(phone, p);
}
}
And it does the job.
Now if I change the Phone class attributes I only need to change that method. Do you think it is OK solving the issue that way?

You should not modify the collection while you're iterating through it; that's likely to earn you a ConcurrentModificationException. You can scan the collection for the first object that matches your search criterion. Then you can exit the loop, remove the old object, and add the new one.
Collection<Phone> col = c.getPhoneCollection();
Phone original = null;
for (Phone phone : col) {
if (phone.getId() == p.getId()) {
original = phone;
break;
}
}
if (original != null) {
Phone replacement = new Phone(original);
replacement.setNumber(p.getNumber());
replacement.setName(p.getName());
col.remove(original);
col.add(replacement);
}
Alternatively, you could declare a more specific type of collection, such as a List, that would allow you to work with indexes, which would make the replacement step much more efficient.
If your phone IDs are unique to each phone, you should consider using a Map<Integer, Phone> that maps each phone ID to the corresponding phone. (Alternatively, you could use some sort of third-party sparse array structure that doesn't involve boxing each ID into an Integer.) Of course, if your IDs aren't unique, then you might want to modify the above to gather a secondary collection of all matching phones (and reconsider the logic of your existing code as well).

You can also use a Set (HashSet), this is only when you don't want to do the way Mike suggested.
Use the Phone as an item in the set. Don't forget to implement hashCode() and equals() in Phone. hashCode() should return the id, as it is supposed to be unique.
Since you are concerned about replacing the item, here's how HashSet will help you :
Create an instance of your object.
Remove the object you want to replace from the set.
Add the new object (you created in step 1) back to the set.
Both these operations 2 & 3 are guaranteed in O(1) / constant time.
You don't need to maintain a map for this problem, that's redundant.
If you want to get the object from the collection itself and then modify it, then HashMap would be better, search is guaranteed in O(1) time.

Instead of a list, use a map with the Phone's id as the key. Then your code looks like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Customer c = new Customer();
c.addPhone(new Phone(1, "12345", "aaa"));
c.addPhone(new Phone(2, "34567", "bbb"));
System.out.println(c);
Phone p = new Phone(2, "9999999", "new name");
Map<Integer, Phone> phoneMap = c.getPhoneMap();
phoneMap.put(p.getId(), p);
System.out.println(c);
}

If you take the object out from the collection and update its properties, it will get reflected in the same object in collection too.. Hence, you dont have to technically replace object after updating it.
As "Mike M." pointed out, you can use hashmap to retrieve the object quickly without iteration and update the object values.

If order matters to you, you can change Collection to List (Since you're always using an ArrayList anyway) and then:
int index = col.indexOf(phone);
col.remove(phone);
col.add(p, index);

Riak 2i - Update deletes secondary indexes

I am using oficial Riak Java client v2.0.2. When I update previously written value (with 2i indexes), the secondary indexes are not preserved.
This is how I do update:
Location location = new Location(this.namespace, key);
UpdateValue updateOp = new UpdateValue.Builder(location)
.withFetchOption(FetchValue.Option.DELETED_VCLOCK, true)
.withUpdate(new RiakKVUpdateValue(values))
.build();
And this is my update class:
public class RiakKVUpdateValue extends Update<Map<String, String>> {
private final Map<String, String> value;
public RiakKVUpdateValue(HashMap<String, ByteIterator> values) {
this.value = StringByteIterator.getStringMap(values);
}
#Override
public Map<String, String> apply(Map<String, String> original) {
return this.value;
}
}
I haven't found anything in the docs about updating objects with 2i indexes.
Am I doing someting wrong?
Should I do manual Read/Modify/Write?

You have to fetch the index and write it back every time you update the value. See 2i Indexing an Object.
I would suggest to create a field to hold the index and annotate it with #RiakIndex. A field annotated with this annotation is populated with 2i values automatically by the Java client when fetched. Then, copy its value in RiakKVUpdateValue.apply() to retain it. Alternatively, fetch and then write back in two separate commands as you already mentioned. This will allow you to control metadata you want to write back. Don't forget to populate the VClocks.
P.S. Retaining 2i automatically can be a bad idea since it's not obvious that a user will want to keep old 2i values. I believe that's why it is left up to the user to decide.

Java cache design question

I need to develop a simple cache (no concurrency or refresh required) to hold different types of objects. The lookup of these objects may be in a different way. Like lets say we are caching book object which has ISBN number and author. Lookup of this object can be either by ISBN number like
Book lookupBookByISBN(String isbn);
OR it could be a lookupByAuthor like
List lookupBookByAuthor(String authorName);
In a very simple way, it means I can have a Cache object which has two maps one to store book object by ISBN and another to store the same object by authorname.
Like this, think of many such object type like book, so I do not want to store the same object in different maps just because the lookup of them are different.
One way I was thinking of having a single Map whose key is a custom Key object and value is Object (so that I can store any object or list of object)
The Key object is a immutable object which might look like this
public class Key {
private final Stirng keyName;
private final String keyValue;
public Key(String name,String value) {
this.keyName= name;
this.keyValue = value;
}
//getters for keyName and value
//hashcode and equals to be put as a key of a map
}
Implementation of lookup method will be
public Book lookupBookByISBN(String isbn) {
Key key = new Key("ISBN",isbn);
return ((Book)map.get(key));
}
public List<Book> lookupBookByAuthor(String isbn) {
Key key = new Key("Author",isbn);
return (List<Book>map.get(key));
}
The insert into map needs to be carefully done as the same object needs to be inserted twice into the map.
public void putBook(Book book) {
Key key = new Key("ISBN",book.getISBN());
map.put(key,book);
key = new Key("Author",book.getAuthor());
List<Book> list = map.get(key);
if (null == list) {
list = new ArrayList<Book>();
map.put(key,book);
}
list.add(book);
}
I somehow feel this might not be a good idea and I might need to put the same object in the map N number of times depending upon N dimensions by which I need to lookup the object.
Is there anyother way to design the same in a better way?

When you store an object in a collection (of any kind), you only store a reference to the object. So go ahead and use multiple maps, you will have only one copy of the actual object.
For example
Map<String,MyBigObject> map1 = new HashMap...
Map<String,MyBigObject> map2 = new HashMap...
MyBigObject mbo = new MyBigObject(...);
map1.put(mbo.getISBN(),mbo);
map2.put(mbo.getAuthor(),mbo);
The single object mbo is now accessible via either map.
EDIT: If you're worried about the complexity of multiple maps complicating the code, write a class MultiMap that contains all the maps and manages them in whatever way you want. You could have methods add(MyBigObject...) which inserts the object into all the maps using the various property accessors to set the correct key, and then lookup methods such as getByAuthor(...) and getByISBN(...), and whatever else you need. Hide all the complexity behind a simple unified interace.

Java LinkedHashMap: what's the difference in these two?

EDIT: The entire code and database creation script can be found from http://gitorious.org/scheator . The database script is in Schema/.
I have the following Java code:
A LinkedHashMap defined in an abstract class as
LinkedHashMap<Object, Data> list;
A descendant class that initializes this list like this:
list = new LinkedHashMap<Integer, Data>();
I add items like this:
String id = rs.getString(FIELDS[0]);
String name = rs.getString(FIELDS[1]);
Data team = new Data(Integer.parseInt(id.trim()), name);
list.put(id, team);
Now when I do this:
System.err.println("delete() count: " + list.size());
System.err.println("delete() key value " + key);
Data obj;
obj = (Data)list.remove(key);
deletedList.put(key, obj);
System.err.println("delete() count: " + list.size());
Nothing is removed from the list, i.e. the first and last prints print the same size(). The key is also correct (I have verified there is an item by that id).
However, and this is my question, if I add the values like this:
Integer id = rs.getInt(FIELDS[0]);
String name = rs.getString(FIELDS[1]);
Data team = new Data(id, name);
list.put(id, team);
The code works! Shouldn't parseInt() produce a similar key to getInt()? Why does the second version work but the first doesn't? I spent a good hour debugging this until I found the reason and I still can't figure out the reason.

First example:
String id = rs.getString(FIELDS[0]);
Second example:
Integer id = rs.getInt(FIELDS[0]);
I can't say for sure since I can't see the rest of the code, but if the key variable is an Integer in this call:
obj = (Data)list.remove(key);
then the remove will only work if the object was put into the map using an Integer and that is why it is only working when the id is integer when you call the put method. The String "123" does not equal the integer 123.
Also I am assuming that you just missed a line in your first example but there was no call to list.put(id, team) but that could also be the source of your problems

There should be no difference, but there are a number of things that are not clear from your example:
deletedList does not refer to the list object
the records in your database that are being used are the same in both cases (perhaps in the first a different int is being used that is already in the Map)
Autoboxing may also be complicating the issue. Replace Integer id in the second sample with int id to pass the same arguments to your Data constructor.
Maybe you could post up the complete code such that we can reproduce the scenario accurately?
Update
You are using String values as keys in your original code. You then have an Object key in your remove(key) method, so I expect you are passing an Integer to the method at this point. A String will not match an Integer as a key, which explains why your remove was not working.
If you use generics to specify your HashMap (LinkedHashMap<Integer, Team> instead of <Object, Team>) this kind of error can't happen - the compiler will say something like
The method put(Integer, Object) in the type HashMap<Integer,Object> is not applicable for the arguments (String, String)

Yanamon is right. It's pretty clear when you look at the diff:
while (rs.next()) {
- String id = rs.getString(FIELDS[0]);
+ Integer id = rs.getInt(FIELDS[0]);
String name = rs.getString(FIELDS[1]);
- Data team = new Data(Integer.parseInt(id.trim()), name);
+ Data team = new Data(id, name);
list.put(id, team);
Note that in the original version, an int (auto-boxed to Integer) is being passed into the Data constructor. But id, which is being putted, is still a String.

My guess is that int the second case you cast it explicitly into an Integer
Integer id = rs.getInt(FIELDS[0]);
while on the first case it remains an int
Integer.parseInt(id.trim())
from the javadoc of parseInt
static int parseInt(String s)
Parses the string argument as a signed decimal integer.

If I were you I would inspect the contents of the LinkedHashMap using a debugger, before and after your put and before and after your remove. Step into the remove() method (the source code is part of the JDK) and see what it is doing. Odds are your code is not adding or removing the object correctly. It's hard to see here because the code sample is incomplete.
As for rs.getInt() and Integer.parseInt(), the first is database-vendor specific (I assume rs is a ResultSet), and thus they may not have the same behaviour. However, once the Integer key is created (you can verify this with your debugger) it should be equivalent for HashMap or LinkedHashMap purposes. But your code sample complicates things further; you are using rs.getString() and then Integer.parseInt(). While I would be surprised if this happened, it's possible that the database driver is formatting the id column into a string that confuses parseInt(). To me it's far more readable to just do rs.getInt().