Develop Reference

Fetch value from a set object in java

I'm iterating a set object to find a particular value. Is there any short way to fetch instead of iterating it? Here is my code
for(Tree t : assignedTrees) {
println t.treeName;
}
The above code will return the expected value.
assignedTrees is the set object
Set<Tree> assignedTrees = new HashSet<Tree>()
println assignedTrees will return
[Tree{id=null, treeName=Mango}]
Can I fetch the treeName instead of iterating?

You can fetch an object from a set by calling mySet.get(object). However, in your case you wish to fetch an object based on one of its attributes. The best way to do this is with a map - e.g.
Map<String, Tree> trees = new HashMap<>();
trees.put(treeObject.treeName, treeObject);
Tree myTree = trees.get("myTreeName");
Note that if you're putting your own objects into sets or maps, you must override the equals and hashcode methods, or very strange things will happen.

In general you can use lambda to find any/first element that fullfils any condition. For example:
Set<Integer> coolStrings = new HashSet<String>();
coolStrings.add("HEHE")
coolStrings.add("NOPE")
coolStrings.add("JP2GMD")
coolStrings.add("1234")
try{
String nice =
coolStrings.stream().filter(
(str) -> { return str.equals("JP2GMD") ||
str.equals("2137"); }
}).findFirst().get();
)
System.out.println("Yay, i found a REALLY cool string! : " + nice);
}
catch(NoSuchElementException e){
System.out.println("Not even one awesome string was found :(");
}
It will print "JP2GMD"
(I didn't compile it, there might be some minor syntax errors)
Working with Stream class is extremally handy (as for java standards)

Iteration over a Set

I'm having issues with getting an iteration done (and modification) through the Set, which contains Objects. I've tried so many ways of iteration (4), but none of them seem to work and still throw me the Error java.util.ConcurrentModificationException.
[Code is written in Groovy]
private void replaceRock() {
ObjectNodeManager.OBJECTS.each {
System.out.println("Going...");
if(it.getPosition().withinDistance(player.getPosition(), 30)) {
System.out.println("Found...");
Position position = it.getPosition();
ObjectNode newRock = new ObjectNode(439, position, ObjectDirection.NORTH, ObjectType.DEFAULT);
ObjectNodeManager.unregister(it);
ObjectNodeManager.register(newRock);
it.remove();
}
}
}
I've tried synchronization to prevent access from other Threads, but this also didn't work. Please help me, I'm very desperate.

First find them (this will give you basically a list of refs) and then deal with them:
ObjectNodeManager.OBJECTS.findAll {
it.getPosition().withinDistance(player.getPosition(), 30))
}.each{
ObjectNode newRock = new ObjectNode(439, it.position, ObjectDirection.NORTH, ObjectType.DEFAULT)
ObjectNodeManager.unregister(it)
ObjectNodeManager.register(newRock)
it.remove()
}
On a random site note: i'd add a replace method in the ObjectNodeManager to combine unregister, register, remove. Also working with class methods and properties is not the best thing to do (but since it looks like a game...)

The problem is that you are modifying the list of objects while you are looping through the objects.
Try iterating through a copy of the objects instead.
ArrayList<YourType> copy = new ArrayList<YourType>(ObjectNodeManager.OBJECTS);
copy.each(...)

null pointer in iterator

public void putExpensiveWineCaseBack(double notBiggerThan)
{
Iterator<WineCase> it = basket.iterator();
WineCase checkedWineCase = null;
while( it.hasNext() )
{
checkedWineCase = it.next();
double checkedPrice = checkedWineCase.getPrice();
int i=0;
for(i=0; i<basket.size(); i++)
{
if(checkedPrice > notBiggerThan)
{
basket.remove(i);
}
}
}
}
}
This code is compiling. The problem is that when executed I get this error:
java.util.ConcurentModificationexception:
null(in java.util.ArrayList$Itr)
for this line:
checkedWineCase = it.next();
What am I missing ?

Change from
basket.remove(i);
to
it.remove();

You're calling basket.remove() but should call it.remove() instead.

You are removing items from the list in the loop where you are iterating through the items in the list. That is the cause of the ConcurrentModificationException.

'null pointer' does not exactly describe your problem, rather it is the name of the exception you received: ConcurentModificationexception
When an iterator is instantiated, it provides access to a certain group of objects, in this case, the contents of 'basket'. It might take some time to go from getting the first object in the iterator to getting the last one.
Now, what happens if the objects in the 'basket' change? The iterator is designed to be 'fail-fast', meaning if the basket has changed, you will immediately get an exception the next time you try to use the Iterator.
This is happening because in some cases you call 'basket.remove()' before you have finished iterating over everything in the basket. You may wish to 'remember' which things should be removed from the basket, and then remove them only when you are completely done with the iterator.
Google 'java iterator concurrentmodificationexception' to see many more explanations of the issue you are encountering.

The problem is you are removing elements from basket while you are iterating over it.
Actually I'm not sure what you are trying to do, as that for loop makes not much sense to me. But I guess you want to remove the element from the Set if the price is larger than notBiggerThan.
So maybe you should try like this:
while(it.hasNext()) {
checkedWineCase = it.next();
double checkedPrice = checkedWineCase.getPrice();
if(checkedPrice > notBiggerThan)
{
it.remove();
}
}

You should not modify the collection while iterating, except by way of Iterator.remove().
The problem comes from your call to basket.remove(i);
I do not completely understand what you are trying to do with that inner for loop (currently it looks like it will remove everything from your basket if any have a price > than the maximum), maybe you want the following:
public void putExpensiveWineCaseBack(double notBiggerThan)
{
Iterator<WineCase> it = basket.iterator();
WineCase checkedWineCase = null;
while( it.hasNext() )
{
checkedWineCase = it.next();
double checkedPrice = checkedWineCase.getPrice();
if(checkedPrice > notBiggerThan)
{
it.remove();
}
}
}

Updating method to remove loop

This is how I understand method getUser below :
Return a User object or null
Get a Set of users and assign them to userSer.
If the set is not empty begin iterating over the set but
return the first user within the set.
Here is the method :
private User getUser(UserDet arg)
{
Set<User> userSet = arg.getUsers(User.class);
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(userSet))
{
for (User user : userSet)
{
return user;
}
}
return null;
}
I think I could replace the method with this :
private User getUser(UserDet arg)
{
Set<User> userSet = arg.getUsers(User.class);
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(userSet))
{
return userSet.iterator().next();
}
else {
return null;
}
}
This new method removes the loop and just returns the first element in the set, same as original implemention. Is it correct?

Yes. Actually, it's pretty much almost the same thing, as a foreach loop is syntactic sugar for using an iterator from an Iterable.
Note, however, that you don't need the nonempty check in the first variant, since the loop won't iterate in the case of an empty set anyway.

yes both are same. in first implementation, control will return on first iteration of the loop from the function and consequently loop will end.

Yes it is correct, I'd even go for removing the CollectionUtils.isNotEmptySet and use the Iterator's hasNext method... If the set is guaranteed to be non-null.

It seems to be correct, but it will only make the method a bit easier to read, it will not optimize it in terms of performance. Still I think the change is good and you should do it.

Yes, it does pretty much the same, but if your spec says to start iterating then maybe you should - maybe this method will be extended in the future.
BTW: it is a good convention that your method has only one return statement (i.e. you can create a variable, which will be returned, assigned a null at the beginning and assign a user inside your loop)

Yes. Both the methods return the first element in the set. The first method seems to have been written for something else previously and changed then keeping the for loop intact.
In anycase, the second method that you're proposing won't give any significant performance benefit but should be a better way than the first one.

So in case, UserDet#getUsers(Class) never returns null (but an empty Set in case no user could be found), the shortest (and in my opinion most readable) form is:
private User getUser(UserDet arg) {
Set<User> userSet = arg.getUsers(User.class);
return userSet.isEmpty() ? null : userSet.iterator().next();
}

I would do this.
I won't run a loop and more over I'l add a null check.
private User getUser(UserDet arg) {
Set<User> userSet = arg.getUsers(User.class);
if (userSet != null && userSet.size() > 0) {
return userSet.iterator().next();
}
return null;
}

How can i counter a ConcurrentModificationException?

if have the following problem:
I have a List which i am going through using the enhanced for loop. Every time i want to remove sth, out of the list, i get a ConcurrentModificationException. I already found out why this exception is thrown, but i don`t know how i can modify my code, so that its working. This is my code:
for(Subject s : SerData.schedule)
{
//Checking of the class is already existing
for(Classes c : s.classes)
{
if(c.day == day &c.which_class == which_class)
{
int index = getclassesindex(s.classes, new Classes(day, which_class));
synchronized (s) {
s.classes.remove(index);
}
}
}
//More code....
}
I also tried out this implementation.
for(Subject s : SerData.schedule)
{
//Checking of the class is already existing
Iterator<Classes> x = s.classes.iterator();
while(x.hasNext())
{
Classes c = x.next();
if(c.day == day &c.which_class == which_class)
{
int index = getclassesindex(s.classes, new Classes(day, which_class));
synchronized (s) {
s.classes.remove(index);
}
}
}
//More code....
}
not working either...
Is there a common used, standard solution? (Hopefully sth. that is not obvious :D )

The main reason this issue occurs is because of the semantic meaning of your for-each loop.
When you use for-each loops, the data structure that is being traversed cannot be modified.
Essentially anything of this form will throw this exception:
for( Object o : objCollection )
{
// ...
if ( satisfiesSomeProperty ( o ) )
objList.remove(o); // This is an error!!
// ...
}
As a side note, you can't add or replace elements in the collection either.
There are a few ways to perform this operation.
One way is to use an iterator and call the remove() method when the object is to be removed.
Iterator <Object> objItr = objCollection.iterator();
while(objItr.hasNext())
{
Object o = objItr.next();
// ...
if ( satifiesSomeProperty ( o ) )
objItr.remove(); // This is okay
// ...
}
This option has the property that removal of the object is done in time proportional to the iterator's remove method.
The next option is to store the objects you want to remove, and then remove them after traversing the list. This may be useful in situations where removal during iteration may produce inconsistent results.
Collection <Object> objsToRemove = // ...
for( Object o : objCollection )
{
// ...
if ( satisfiesSomeProperty ( o ) )
objsToRemove.add (o);
// ...
}
objCollection.removeAll ( objsToRemove );
These two methods work for general Collection types, but for lists, you could use a standard for loop and walk the list from the end of the list to the front, removing what you please.
for (int i = objList.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
Object o = objList.get(i);
// ...
if ( satisfiesSomeProperty(o) )
objList.remove(i);
// ...
}
Walking in the normal direction and removing could also be done, but you would have to take care of how incrementation occurs; specifically, you don't want to increment i when you remove, since the next element is shifted down to the same index.
for (int i = 0; i < objList.size(); i++)
{
Object o = objList.get(i);
// ...
if ( satisfiesSomeProperty(o) )
{
objList.remove(i);
i--;
}
//caveat: only works if you don't use `i` later here
// ...
}
Hope this provides a good overview of the concepts and helps!

Using Iterator.remove() should prevent the exception from being thrown.

Hm if I get it right you are iterating over a collection of classes and if a given class matches some criteria you are looking for the its index and try to remove it?
Why not just do:
Iterator<Classes> x = s.classes.iterator();
while(x.hasNext()){
Classes c = x.next();
if(c.day == day && c.which_class == which_class) {
x.remove();
}
}
Add synchronization if need be (but I would prefer a concurrent collection if I were you), preferably change the "==" to equals(), add getters/setters etc. Also the convention in java is to name variables and methods using camelCase (and not separating them with "_").
Actually this is one of the cases when you have to use an iterator.

From the javadoc on ConcurrentModificationException:
"if a thread modifies a collection directly while it is iterating over the collection with a fail-fast iterator, the iterator will throw this exception."
So within your
for (Classes c : s.classes)
you are executing
s.classes.remove(index)
and the iterator is doing just what its contract says. Declare the index(es) in a scope outside the loop and remove your target after the loop is done.

Iterator<Classes> classesIterator = s.classes.iterator();
while (classesIterator.hasNext()) {
Classes c = classesIterator.next();
if (c.day == day && c.which_class == which_class) {
classesIterator.remove();
}
}

There is no general solution for Collection subclasses in general - most iterators will become invalid if the collection is modified, unless the modification happens through the iterator itself via Iterator.remove().
There is a potential solution when it comes to List implementations: the List interface has index-based add/get/set/remove operations. Rather than use an Iterator instance, you can iterate through the list explicitly with a counter-based loop, much like with arrays. You should take care, however, to update the loop counter appropriately when inserting or deleting elements.

Your for-each iterator is fail-fast and this is why remove operation fails as it would change the collection while traversing it.
What implementation of List interface are you using?
Noticed synchronisation on Subject, are you using this code concurrently?
If concurrency is the case, then I would recommend using CopyOnWriteArrayList. It doesn't need synchronisation and its for-each iterator doesn't throw ConcurrentModificationException.