I am struggling to find a way to dispatch this to functions in java8
Person p = registry.getPerson();
if (field == Field.LASTNAME) {
p.setLastName(str);
}
if (field == Field.FIRSTNAME) {
p.setFirstName(str);
}
if (field == Field.MIDDLENAME) {
p.setMiddleName(str);
}
My idea is to use some kind of function dispatch table to replace the if statements in the case of more cases:
Map<Integer, Function> map = new HashMap<Integer, Function>
static {
map.put(1, new Function<String, String>() {
#Override
public Object apply(String str) {
person.setLastName(str);
return str;
}
}
}
But the code cannot compile, because i need to pass the person object some place. Anyone knows a pattern for this?
Assuming Field is an enum, you can add BiConsumer<Person,String> as an enum field:
class Person {
static enum Field {
FIRSTNAME(Person::setFirstName),
MIDDLENAME(Person::setMiddleName),
LASTNAME(Person::setLastName)
;
private BiConsumer<Person, String> setter;
private Field(BiConsumer<Person, String> setter) {
this.setter = setter;
}
}
public void set(Field field, String str) {
field.setter.accept(this, str);
}
......
}
Instead of storing Function<String,String>, you can store BiFunction<Person,String,String> and pass the Person instance in as a parameter.
Map<Integer, BiFunction<Person,String,String>> map =
new HashMap<Integer, BiFunction<Person,String,String>>();
static {
map.put(1, (person, str)->person.setLastName(str));
}
In the interest of simplicity, you could also just store a List of the functions, if you're just going to index them by an integer, it's faster for random access and makes for less complicated generic code:
List<BiFunction<Person,String,String>> list = new ArrayList<BiFunction<Person,String,String>>();
static {
list.add((person, str)->person.setLastName(str));
}
Related
I have an enum like below. Until recently, all variables were single-valued. However, now TYPE4 can have one of three acceptable values. I was hoping to simply modify this enum to accommodate for TYPE4, but thinking perhaps having only one type that is multi-valued means I need to use an object for mapping rather than an enum. I would be grateful for any insights. Thank you.
public enum Record {
TYPE1("TYPE1"),
TYPE2("TYPE2"),
TYPE3("TYPE3"),
TYPE4_MULTI(TYPE_A or TYPE_B or TYPE_C);
private final String value;
public static final Map<Record, String> enumMap = new EnumMap<Record, String>(
Record.class);
static {
for (Record e : Record.values())
enumMap.put(e, e.getValue());
}
Record(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String getValue() {
return value;
}
}
Operationally, I use this enum in a factory class to determine which of 4 types of subclasses I should instantiate. I do this by have each of the subclasses know its own type like this:
#Override
public String getType() {
return Record.TYPE1.getValue();
}
,and then the factory class pre-builds a set of the subclasses like this:
#Component
public class RecordProcessorFactory {
#Autowired
public RecordProcessorFactory(List<RecordProcessor> processors) {
for (RecordProcessor recordProcessor : processors) {
processorCache.put(recordProcessor.getType(), recordProcessor);
}
}
private static final Map<String, RecordProcessor> processorCache = new HashMap<String, RecordProcessor>();
public RecordProcessor getSyncProcessor(String type) {
RecordProcessor service = processorCache.get(type);
if(service == null) throw new RuntimeException("Unknown service type: " + type);
return service;
}
}
You could use a String array to store multiple values, note that your logic may change with enumMap that way.
public enum Record {
TYPE1("TYPE1"),
TYPE2("TYPE2"),
TYPE3("TYPE3"),
TYPE4_MULTI("TYPE_A", "TYPE_B", "TYPE_C");
private final String[] values;
public static final Map<Record, String[]> enumMap = new EnumMap<Record, String[]>(Record.class);
static {
for (Record e : Record.values())
enumMap.put(e, e.getValues());
}
Record(String... values) {
this.values = values;
}
public String[] getValues() {
return values;
}
}
In case you need to get the Enum from a String value, you could add this static method:
public static Optional<Record> optionalValueOf(final String value) {
for (Record record : values()) {
for (String recordValue : record.values) {
if (null == value && null == recordValue || value.equals(recordValue)) {
return Optional.of(record);
}
}
}
return Optional.empty();
}
I think it's better to encapsulate values in the enum. It should be immutable (array is not immutable data storage).
#lombok.Getter
public enum Record {
TYPE1("TYPE1"),
TYPE2("TYPE2"),
TYPE3("TYPE3"),
TYPE4_MULTI("TYPE_A", "TYPE_B", "TYPE_C");
// immutable list
private final List<String> values;
Record(String... values) {
this.values = Arrays.stream(values)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
}
P.S. Map<Record, String> enumMap I think is useless, because you have a Record already and all you need just call record.getValues() instead of Record.enumMaps.get(record). Also, this is breakes OOP encapsulation.
Without using getter and setter method how to prevent modification access from child class if super class has protected Hashmap variable?
This Map is mutable (So i should be able to add the values from super class)So can't use UnmodifiableMap(its only applicable immutable collection object)
Class A
{
protected Map<Integer,Integer> m = new HashMap<Integer,Integer>();
A()
{
m.put(10,11)
m.put(11.12)
}
}
Class B extends A
{
B()
{
super.m.put(34,90) —— I don’t want to give access to child class to add
the value and child class and its only should able to get the values.
}
}
Make the map unmodifiable, and populate it in the construction of A.
class A {
protected final Map<Integer,Integer> m;
A() {
Map<Integer, Integer> tempMap = = new HashMap<>();
tempMap.put(10,11);
tempMap.put(11.12);
this.m = java.util.Collections.unmodifiableMap(tempMap);
}
}
If and when B attempts to modify the map, a ´UnsupportedOperationException´ will be thrown.
If you want A to be able to modify the map, then you'll need a different approach in which the map is private, and a protected getter returns an unmodifiable map.
class A {
private final Map<Integer,Integer> m = new HashMap<>();
A() {
m.put(10,11);
m.put(11.12);
// m remains modifiable within the context of A
}
protected Map<Integer, Integer> getMap() {
return java.util.Collections.unmodifiableMap(m);
}
}
EDIT
If you really don't want to use a getter but still have read-only access, you can use this approach.
class A {
private final Map<Integer,Integer> writableMap = new HashMap<>();
protected final Map<Integer,Integer> m = Collections.unmodifiableMap(writableMap);
A() {
writableMap.put(10,11);
writableMap.put(11.12);
}
}
Using this approach, only m is visible outside A, and is read-only. Within A, you can update writableMap and these changes will be visible in m
Here is a variant of what Steve Chaloner presented in his answer:
public class A {
private final Map<Integer, Integer> map = new HashMap<>();
protected final Map<Integer,Integer> m = Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
public A() {
map.put(10, 11);
map.put(11, 12);
}
}
The private map is modifiable in the A class and changes will be reflected in the protected m whenever changes are made in map.
It is being used this way in Concurrency In Practice for example.
This should be the best solution Composition:
Implement a new Map and keep an internal private modifiable map like this:
class A {
private Map<Integer,Integer> m = new HashMap<>();
protected Map<Integer, Integer> map = new Map<>() {
//implement interface
public Integer put(Integer key, Integer value) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
public Integer get(Object key) {
return m.get(key);
}
public void clear() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
public boolean containsKey(Object key) {
return m.containsKey(key);
}
public boolean containsValue(Object value) {
return m.containsValue(value);
}
//
// ... And so on
//
// ... with all other methods
}
A() {
m.put(10,11)
m.put(11.12)
}
}
class B extends A {
B() {
super.map.put(34,90) // thorws exception
super.m.put(34,90) // inaccesible
}
}
All modifications are allowed in A via m but subclasses may only acces them by map that was succesfully blocked modifications.
I have a little "Object":
Map<Integer, Map<WeekDay, Map<String, Data>>> obj
and I want to Map it to:
Map<Integer, Map<WeekDay, Map<String, DataDto>>> returnObj
how can I achive this?
The way I wanted to use was this one:
map(schedule, Map<Integer.class, Map<WeekDay.class, Map<String.class, DataDto.class>>>);
but at the "Map" I am stuck, becuase I can't add a .class behind them and in this state it doesn't work...
I would suggest to simplify your Map if possible:
class A {
WeekDay weekDay;
String str;
Data obj;
}
Map<Integer, A> map = ...;
Iterables.transform(map.values(), new Function<Data, DataDto>() {
#Override
public Object apply(String input) {
return ...;
}
});
or you can put it inside your class:
class Dictionary {
Map<Integer, Map<WeekDay, Map<String, Data>>> obj;
getDataDto(Integer key, Weekday weekDay, String str) {
final Data data = obj.get(key).get(weekDay).get(str);
return (new Function<Data, DataDto>() {
...
}).apply(data);
}
}
Think about operations you are going to use over your data structure and come up with the proper class. Your nested map doesn't look okay.
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 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
}