how can I sort Event by index?
simple view of my project:
class Event{
int index;
}
class EventField{
Event[] field;
}
class Action{
EventField ev;
ev.sort(); // Sort event in field EventField by index
}
Use Arrays.sort() with Comparator<Event> which is using Integer.compare()
Arrays.sort(ev.field, new Comparator<Event>(){
#Override
public int compare(Event e1, Event e2) {
return Integer.compare(e1.index, e2.index)
}
});
You need to implement method in EventField
class EventField{
Event[] field;
public void sort(){ Arrays.sort(field, yourCustomComparatorInstance }
}
that does sorting using a custom Comparator on Event
Related:
Sorting a list of points with Java
See
Arrays.sort()
In java you have 2 ways to define order you can create a Comparator for creating your sort strategy, or define natural-order of your class implementing Comparable
Example using Comparator:
class Event{
private int index;
public static final Comparator<Event> INDEX_COMPARATOR = new MyComparator();
//TODO define getters and setter equals & hashCode cause it's strong recommended
static class MyComparator implements Comparator<MyClass>{
#Override
public int compare(Event o1, Event o2) {
return Integer.valueOf(o1.index).compareTo(o2.index);
}
}
}
And then in EventField.
Example:
class EventField{
Event[] fields;
public void sort(){
Arrays.sort(fields,Event.INDEX_COMPARATOR );
}
}
Read more : Collections#sort(..)
If you want to define natural-ordering of your class just define
public class Event implements Comparable<Event>{
private int index;
//define getter&setter & recommended equals & hashCode
#Override
public int compareTo(Event o) {
return Integer.valueOf(index).compareTo(o.index);
}
}
And in EventField code:
Arrays.sort(fields); // where fields is Event[]
If events are naturally something you'll be comparing a lot in your program, you can extend the Comparable interface:
public class Event implements Comparable<Event> {
private int index;
public int getIndex() {
return index;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Event o) {
return index == o.getIndex() ? 0 : (index > o.getIndex() ? 1 : -1);
}
}
Then you can call Arrays.sort(ev.getField()). If the objects in 'field' are always going to be sorted, then you can just keep its objects sorted whenever you add something to it.
Related
First I got a class named after my Chinese name
public class Yxj<T> {
private T[] data;
private int size = 0;
private final Comparator<? super T> comparator;
public Yxj(Comparator<? super T> c) {
data= (T[]) new Object[16];
comparator = c;
}
public void addItem(T t){
data[size++] = t;
}
public int sort(){
return comparator.compare(data[0], data[1]);
}
public T[] getData(){
return data;
}
}
in which a Comparator resides,then I defined a Norwich keeping a field order and setter and getter of it, finally there's a method used to implement the compare(T t1,T t2) in Comparator.
public class Norwich {
private int order;
public Norwich(int o) {
order = o;
}
public int getOrder() {
return order;
}
public void setOrder(int order) {
this.order = order;
}
public int compareOrder(Norwich n) {
if (order > n.getOrder()) {
return 2;
} else if (order == n.getOrder()) {
return 0;
} else {
return -3;
}
}
}
then here comes the main method
Yxj<Norwich> norwichYxj = new Yxj<>(Norwich::compareOrder);
norwichYxj.addItem(new Norwich(9));
norwichYxj.addItem(new Norwich(1));
System.out.println(norwichYxj.sort());
so what I'm interested in is that, why does not the method compareOrder keep the same parameters as the compare in Comparator but it can still work correctly?
It is simple. You have passed through the constructor your implementation of the Comparator to be used for comparing.
Yxj<Norwich> norwichYxj = new Yxj<>(Norwich::compareOrder);
Remember Comparator is nothing else than an interface. Since it is a functional interface, it can be represented through a lambda expression or a
method reference (as you did). The way you can pass the Comparator in the full form is as follows. Note the usage of the compareOrder method:
Yxj<Norwich> norwichYxj = new Yxj<>(new Comparator<>() {
#Override
public int compare(Norwich o1, Norwich o2) {
return o1.compareOrder(o2); // usage of compareOrder
}
});
This can be shortened to a lambda expression:
Yxj<Norwich> norwichYxj = new Yxj<>((o1, o2) -> o1.compareOrder(o2));
It can be shortened again to a method reference:
Yxj<Norwich> norwichYxj = new Yxj<>(Norwich::compareOrder);
Now you can see it can be represented in this way though the method compareOrder accepts only one formal parameter. The first parameter of the Comparator#compare method is the one invoking the compareOrder method and the second parameter is the one being passed to the compareOrder method.
Learn more here: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/methodreferences.html
Additionally, the classes you have constructed look a bit odd. Though the other answer doesn't in fact answer your question, it can lead you to a better code: Implementing a functional interface via method reference
class Yxj
The paramter T of your class Yxj should have more restrictions if you want to compare/sort in this class with T then say T must be comparable.
If your T array grows then don't implement your own growing array but use ArrayList instead which does that for you
If you do the first you don't need the Comperator anymore
Your methode sort only sorts the first and second element so you will get problems. If the data is shorter you will get an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException if it is longer it won't sort the rest of elements. So with a Collection you could simple use Collections.sort(data);
public class Yxj<T extends Comparable<T>> {
private final List<T> data;
public Yxj() {
this.data = new ArrayList<>();
}
public void addItem(T t){
data.add(t);
}
public void sort(){
Collections.sort(data);
}
public List<T> getData(){
return data;
}
public void print(){
System.out.println(data);
}
}
class Norwich
If you done the above know your Norwich class must implement the Comparable interface so you can compare Norwich instances with the methode compareTo which also will be called each time you or the API ask directly or indirectly to compare to Norwich instances like for sorting ect.
public class Norwich implements Comparable<Norwich> {
private int order;
public Norwich(int o) {
this.order = o;
}
public int getOrder() {
return this.order;
}
public void setOrder(int order) {
this.order = order;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Norwich other) {
return this.order - other.order;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Norwich{" +
"order=" + order +
'}';
}
}
Main
Done? Perfect, then your main could be looks like this
public static void main(String[] args) {
Yxj<Norwich> norwichYxj = new Yxj<>();
norwichYxj.addItem(new Norwich(9));
norwichYxj.addItem(new Norwich(1));
norwichYxj.sort();
norwichYxj.print();
}
I want to sort my self implemented Linked List Using Comparable Interface with Java .I need to implement the compareTo method :
Here is the code for my class ListElement :
public class ListElement implements Comparable<ListElement> {
public Object wert;
public ListElement nachFolger;
public ListElement(Object wert , ListElement nachFolger) {
this.wert=wert;
this.nachFolger=nachFolger;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(ListElement a) {
if(this.nachFolger.wert - a.wert) {
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
}
But I get an error , any recommendations ?
You are trying to subtract to references of type Object.
Your element type should implement Comparable:
public class ListElement<T extends Comparable<T>> implements Comparable<ListElement<T>> {
public T wert;
public ListElement<T> nachFolger;
public ListElement(T wert, ListElement<T> nachFolger) {
this.wert=wert;
this.nachFolger=nachFolger;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(ListElement<T> a) {
return wert.compareTo(a.wert);
}
}
In Java, subtract operation only applies to numeric literals (and auto-unboxed numeric objects). As you are trying to use it on non numeric Object type, you are getting the error. If you want to compare two wert values, you can do the following:
Change the type to number from Object so that you can compare, e.g.:
public Object wert;
#Override
public int compareTo(ListElement a) {
return wert.compareTo(a.wert);
}
Change the type to Comparable so you can use compareTo on two wert objects
public Comparable wert;
#Override
public int compareTo(ListElement a) {
return wert.compareTo(a.wert);
}
I think I have a design problem in my Java app, but I cannot figure out how to solve or bypass it.
Say I have an interface and an abstract class implementing it as follows:
public interface IntegerCollection extends Collection<Integer> {
public int sum();
}
public abstract class AbstractIntegerCollection
extends AbstractCollection<Integer> implements IntegerCollection {
public int sum() {
// fancy code to calculate the sum of all collection members (just an example)
}
}
Now I would want to make this class instantiable by using the existing implementations of Collection (e.g., LinkedList); something like this:
public class IntegerLinkedList extends AbstractIntegerCollection, LinkedList<Integer> {
}
IntegerCollection ic = new IntegerLinkedList();
However, this does not work because Java does not support extending several classes. Also it looks quite ugly to me, as there is a mixture of hierarchies.
Of course, I could let IntegerLinkedList implement IntegerCollection instead of letting it extend AbstractIntegerCollection. But then, I would have to repeat the code for sum() in all other implementations (e.g., IntegerArrayList).
Is there a better way to do this?
I'm not sure what exactly, you are trying to achieve, but rather you could implements List instead of extending LinkedList
public class IntegerLinkedList
extends AbstractIntegerCollection
implements List<Integer>
{
}
But, you need to implements all abstract method of List.
Since java 8 it has been possible to include implementations in an interface by using the default keyword. Therefore you don't need AbstractIntegerCollection - all the common code can be put in the interface. Here is an example:
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.LinkedList;
public class Main {
interface IntegerCollection extends Collection<Integer> {
default int sum() {
int sum = 0;
for (int a : this)
sum += a;
return sum;
}
}
static class IntegerLinkedList extends LinkedList<Integer> implements IntegerCollection {
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
IntegerCollection list = new IntegerLinkedList();
list.add(1);
list.add(2);
list.add(3);
System.out.println(list.sum()); // Prints 6
}
}
This works, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. I'd think very carefully before extending a class like LinkedList. Some people also consider it an anti-pattern to extend generic classes with non-generic ones.
Another thing to be aware of is that it is not possible to write default methods for the methods of Object like equals and toString etc.
Since you are using Java 7, the above solution is not available. However, with a load of tedious forwarding methods, you can do it using composition rather than inheritance. Josh Bloch's book Effective Java gives a very good explanation of why composition is preferable anyway. Here is an (incomplete) example - you'll need to add a few more forwarding methods to avoid UnsupportedOperationExceptions when you try doing other things with the list.
import java.util.*;
public class Main {
abstract static class AbstractIntegerCollection extends AbstractCollection<Integer> {
public int sum() {
int sum = 0;
for (int a : this)
sum += a;
return sum;
}
}
static class IntegerLinkedList extends AbstractIntegerCollection implements List<Integer> {
private final List<Integer> list = new LinkedList<>();
#Override
public Iterator<Integer> iterator() {
return list.iterator();
}
#Override
public int size() {
return list.size();
}
#Override
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection<? extends Integer> c) {
return list.addAll(index, c);
}
#Override
public Integer get(int index) {
return list.get(index);
}
#Override
public Integer set(int index, Integer element) {
return list.set(index, element);
}
#Override
public boolean add(Integer element) {
return list.add(element);
}
#Override
public void add(int index, Integer element) {
list.add(index, element);
}
#Override
public Integer remove(int index) {
return list.remove(index);
}
#Override
public int indexOf(Object o) {
return list.indexOf(o);
}
#Override
public int lastIndexOf(Object o) {
return list.lastIndexOf(o);
}
#Override
public ListIterator<Integer> listIterator() {
return list.listIterator();
}
#Override
public ListIterator<Integer> listIterator(int index) {
return list.listIterator(index);
}
#Override
public List<Integer> subList(int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
return list.subList(fromIndex, toIndex);
}
// More of these
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
IntegerLinkedList list = new IntegerLinkedList();
list.add(1);
list.add(2);
list.add(3);
System.out.println(list.sum()); // Prints 6
}
}
This solution is far from perfect. For one thing, it would be better if IntegerLinkedList extended AbstractList<Integer> rather than just AbstractCollection<Integer>, but then you couldn't extend AbstractIntegerCollection too.
I have a class hierarchy like below
Vehicle
|_ TransaportationVehicle has method getLoadCapacity
|_ PassengerVehicle has method getPassengerCapacity
and I have one more class Booking it have a reference to Vehicle.
Now whenever I have to call getPassengerCapacity or getLoadCapacity on vehicle reference I need to type cast vehicle to its concrete implementation like ((PassengerVehicle)vehicle).getPassengerCapacity() and this type of calls spans over multiple parts in the project. So is there any way with which I can avoid these type of casts and my code will look beautiful and clean?
Note: These are not actual classes I have taken these as an example to demonstrate current problem.
Obviously, when booking a Vehicle you need to distinguish at some point whether it’s a TransportationVehicle or a PassengerVehicle as both have different properties.
The easiest way would be to initiate two different Booking processes: one for vehicles that can transport goods, and one for vehicles that can transport passengers. As for how to differentiate between these two types of vehicles: you could add canTransportPassengers() and canTransportGoods() methods to Vehicle, the subclasses would then override these methods to return true where appropriate. Also, this way a vehicle that can transport both is possible, like a train.
If You want to use different method names then You must cast to concrete class.
But if You can make this methods return same type value and have same names You can use polymorphism for it. Create abstract method in Vehicle class and override it in each child.
A quick way I would accomplish this is to create a Generified Booking parent class.
public abstract class Booking<V extends Vehicle> {
protected abstract V getVehicle();
}
public class TransportationVehicleBooking extends Booking<TransaportationVehicle> {
#Override
protected TransaportationVehicle getVehicle() {
return new TransaportationVehicle();
}
}
public class PassengerVehicleBooking extends Booking<PassengerVehicle> {
#Override
protected PassengerVehicle getVehicle() {
return new PassengerVehicle();
}
}
Your Booking class will have all the logic that spans all the booking subclasses and some abstract method each subclasses will need to do effective calculations.
Then all you have to do is have reference to a Booking class and calling the relevant method required without having to worry about the "logistics" (get it) of the booking itself.
I hope this helps.
You method overriding concepts. You need to have all these method in the Parent class and same can be overriden in the child clasees.
You can then access all the methods from super class using Runtime polymorphism
Vehicle
public interface Vehicle {
public int getCapacity();
}
TransaportationVehicle
public class TransaportationVehicle implements Vehicle {
#Override
public int getCapacity() {
return getLoadCapacity();
}
private int getLoadCapacity() {
return 0;
}
}
PassengerVehicle
public class PassengerVehicle implements Vehicle {
#Override
public int getCapacity() {
return getPassengerCapacity();
}
private int getPassengerCapacity() {
return 0;
}
}
USAGE
Vehicle passenger = new PassengerVehicle();
passenger.getCapacity();
Vehicle transaportation = new TransaportationVehicle();
transaportation.getCapacity()
First try to extract an abstract method suitable for all vehicles. If you can't do this you can also use an often forgotten pattern - the visitor pattern. E.g.
Introduce a visitor interface
public interface VehicleVisitor {
public void visit(TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle);
public void visit(PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle);
}
add an accept method to the Vehicle
public interface Vehicle {
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor);
}
implement the accept method in the sub classes
public class PassengerVehicle implements Vehicle {
private int passengerCapacity;
public static PassengerVehicle withPassengerCapacity(int passengerCapacity) {
return new PassengerVehicle(passengerCapacity);
}
private PassengerVehicle(int passengerCapacity) {
this.passengerCapacity = passengerCapacity;
}
public int getPassengerCapacity() {
return passengerCapacity;
}
#Override
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
public class TransportationVehicle implements Vehicle {
private int loadCapacity;
public static TransportationVehicle withLoadCapacity(int loadCapacity) {
return new TransportationVehicle(loadCapacity);
}
private TransportationVehicle(int loadCapacity) {
this.loadCapacity = loadCapacity;
}
public int getLoadCapacity() {
return loadCapacity;
}
#Override
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
implement a visitor...
public class LoadSupported implements VehicleVisitor {
private boolean supported;
private int load;
public LoadSupported(int load) {
this.load = load;
}
public boolean isSupported() {
return supported;
}
#Override
public void visit(TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle) {
int loadCapacity = transportationVehicle.getLoadCapacity();
supported = load <= loadCapacity;
}
#Override
public void visit(PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle) {
supported = false;
}
}
...and use it
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle1 = TransportationVehicle
.withLoadCapacity(5);
TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle2 = TransportationVehicle
.withLoadCapacity(10);
PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle = PassengerVehicle
.withPassengerCapacity(5);
LoadSupported loadSupported = new LoadSupported(7);
supportsLoad(transportationVehicle1, loadSupported);
supportsLoad(transportationVehicle2, loadSupported);
supportsLoad(passengerVehicle, loadSupported);
}
private static void supportsLoad(Vehicle vehicle,
LoadSupported loadSupported) {
vehicle.accept(loadSupported);
System.out.println(vehicle.getClass().getSimpleName() + "[" + System.identityHashCode(vehicle) + "]" + " does"
+ (loadSupported.isSupported() ? " " : " not ")
+ "support load capacity");
}
}
The output will be something like this
TransportationVehicle[778966024] does not support load capacity
TransportationVehicle[1021653256] does support load capacity
PassengerVehicle[1794515827] does not support load capacity
Assuming that passenger capacity is always an integer and load capacity could very well a big number depending on what is the unit for load. I would go ahead and create Vehicle class as follow:
class Vehicle {
Number capacity;
public Number getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
The reason I am using Number is so that I then use Integer in PassengerVehicle class and Double in TransporatationVehicle and that is because Integer and Double are subtype of Number and you can get away with a cast.
class TransportationVehicle extends Vehicle {
#Override
public Double getCapacity() {
//all I have to do is cast Number to Double
return (Double) capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
Similarly the PassengerVehicle class as follow:
class PassengerVehicle extends Vehicle {
#Override
public Integer getCapacity() {
//Cast to Integer and works because Integer is subtype of Number
return (Integer) capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
You can then use above classes to create vehicle object as follow:
public class Booking {
public static void main(String[] args) {
//
Vehicle transportationVehicle = new TransportationVehicle();
//assigning Double to setCapacity
transportationVehicle.setCapacity(new Double(225.12));
Vehicle passengerVehicle = new PassengerVehicle();
//assigning Integer to setCapacity
passengerVehicle.setCapacity(5);
System.out.println(transportationVehicle.getCapacity());
// output: 225.12
System.out.println(passengerVehicle.getCapacity());
// output: 5
}
}
On the side notes if you try to pass TransportationVehicle anything but Number or Double then you will get Exception and similarly if you pass PassengerVehicle anything but Number or Integer you will get exception.
I know that I am deviating from the scope of your question but, I really want to show how you can make your methods generics. This allow you to decide to return type of getCapacity() during coding which is very flexible. See below:
class Vehicle<T> {
//generic type T
T capacity;
//generic method getCapacity
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
//generic method setCapacity
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
class TransportationVehicle<T> extends Vehicle<T> {
#Override
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
class PassengerVehicle<T> extends Vehicle<T> {
#Override
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
As you can see above the generic methods and you can use them as follow:
Vehicle<String> vehicleString = new TransportationVehicle<String>();
vehicleString.setCapacity("Seriously!"); //no problem
Vehicle<Integer> vehicleInteger = new PassengerVehicle<Integer>();
vehicleInteger.setCapacity(3); //boxing done automatically
Vehicle<Double> vehicleDouble = new PassengerVehicle<Double>();
vehicleDouble.setCapacity(2.2); //boxing done automatically
You can decide the type while coding and if you supply a Vehicle<String> with capacity as Integer then you will get compile time error, so you won't be allowed.
System.out.println(vehicleString.getCapacity());
//output: Seriously!
System.out.println(vehicleInteger.getCapacity());
//output: 3
System.out.println(vehicleDouble.getCapacity());
//output: 2.2
I don't understand the example. How do you realize that you are dealing with a concrete type in the first place? Are you instanceOf-ing? Are you type matching?
If so your problem is way past casting...
Anyways when you have objects that must belong to the same family and algorithms which are not abstract and change according to the object being handled you typically use some sort of behavioral pattern like visitor, or the Bridge pattern.
Basically i'm attempting to write a compareTo that does the comparison based on the value of compareByWord. If compareByWord is true, I want it to compare based on the word, but if it's false, I want it to compare based on count.
class WordCount implements Comparable //Error saying WordCount must implement the inherited abstract method Comparable.compareto (Object)
{
String word;
int count;
static boolean compareByWord;
public WordCount(String aWord)
{
setWord(aWord);
count = 1;
}
private void setWord(String theWord)
{
word=theWord;
}
public void increment()
{
count+=1;
}
public static void sortByWord()
{
compareByWord = true;
}
public static void sortByCount()
{
compareByWord = false;
}
public String toString()
{
String result = String.format("%s (%d)",word, count);
return result;
}
public String getWord()
{
return word;
}
public int getCount()
{
return count;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(WordCount other) { //Error saying compareTo (WordCount) of type WordCount must override or implement a supertype method.
if (compareByWord == true)
{
return word.compareTo(other.getWord());
}
if (compareByWord == false)
{
return count.compareTo(other.getCount()); //Error saying it cannot invoke compareTo int on primitive type int.
}
return 0;
}
}
My class was perfect before I tried to implement this, not sure where I'm going wrong here. Any and all help is much appreciated.
Change the declaration to
class WordCount implements Comparable<WordCount> { // generic version
The method signature in Comparable<WordCount> is compareTo(WordCount obj) while for the raw version it's compareTo(Object obj).
With the usage of #Override, the compiler makes sure that you actually override the parent method. And the problem is that compareTo(WordCount obj) does not override compareTo(Object obj).
must implement the inherited abstract method Comparable.compareto (Object)
So pass Object, not WordCount. Now you're trying to overload this function, not override.
Use Integer count not int count. Integer is an object which implements Comparable whereas int is a primitive as the error message describes. For javadocs:
public final class Integer
extends Number
implements Comparable<Integer>
Make sure you change your accessor methods to use Integer as well of course.
That will take care of your final error.