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 make a java table where all rows can be used as keys?

This is hard for me to explain as I'm not native to the English language, so I will try setting up an example.
I am trying to save some data about a player in a class called PlayerData. It has three variables with getters and setters.
public class PlayerData {
private String player;
private String username;
private UUID uuid;
public String getPlayer() {
return player;
}
public void setPlayer(String player) {
this.player = player;
}
public String getUsername() {
return username;
}
public void setUsername(String username) {
this.username = username;
}
public UUID getUuid() {
return uuid;
}
public void setUuid(UUID uuid) {
this.uuid = uuid;
}
}
For each player in the game, there will be generated a PlayerData object. Normally I would store this in a Map, so I can get the data about a player from eg. the UUID. However, I could use a way to be able to use any variable in the PlayerData object as "key", so I don't require the UUID to get the PlayerData. A way to do this (and my usual approach) would be to have multiple maps, something like this.
Map<String, PlayerData> playerMap;
Map<String, PlayerData> usernameMap;
Map<UUID, PlayerData> uuidMap;
The problem is, when it scales up with multiple variables, this gets annoying, and perhaps even eats up the RAM? I'm not entirely sure, as it stores references.
It similar to SQL, where you can also get specific colums based on the content of the rows. That's what I'm looking for, but without the SQL database.
I made a table explanation below in an attempt to explain it further:
Player
Username
UUID
Peter
Peter1234
657f6c48-655f-11eb-ae93-0242ac130002
Stephen
DogLover69
657f6efa-655f-11eb-ae93-0242ac130002
Joshua
XxFlowerPotxX
657f6fea-655f-11eb-ae93-0242ac130002
Short edition
I'm looking for a way to store multiple objects of the same type, where I (unlike Maps, that only take a single object as Key) can use multiple assigned variables as keys.
I hope the explaination was clear, I have absoloutly no idea how to explain it, which is probably also why I can't solve it by googling.
Thank you for your time.

As far as I understand, it's need to store various data for a specific user (and not just to update old values)
One way is through a custom map. Since only need a key (unique), could assume that username is doing that (eg:login). MyData can be customized further with what ever wanted to store.
Each key/username will contain a distinct list where new data is added.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.List;
public class TestPData {
public static void main(String[] args)
{
TestPData t = new TestPData();
MyMap m = t.new MyMap();
//key can be just user name, if unique is assured
m.putMyData("player_1", t.new MyData("p1_data1"));
m.putMyData("player_1", t.new MyData("p1_data2"));
m.putMyData("player_2", t.new MyData("p2_data3"));
m.putMyData("player_3", t.new MyData("p2_data4"));
m.putMyData("player_3", t.new MyData("p2_data5"));
m.putMyData("player_3", t.new MyData("p2_data6"));
m.forEach((k,v)->{for(MyData d: v) {System.out.println(k+":"+d);}});
}
class MyData
{
String s;
public MyData(String s)
{
this.s = s;
}
public String toString()
{
return s;
}
}
class MyMap extends HashMap<String, List<MyData>>
{
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
public void putMyData(String k, MyData d)
{
if(!this.containsKey(k))
{
this.put(k, new ArrayList<MyData>());
this.get(k).add(d);
}
else
{
this.get(k).add(d);
}
}
}
}
Output
player_1:p1_data1
player_1:p1_data2
player_3:p2_data4
player_3:p2_data5
player_3:p2_data6
player_2:p2_data3

If you are dealing with few records (some thousands), you can use a list and iterative search as suggested by #gilbert-le-blanc, but if you need to manage huge amounts of records/attributes, it is better to use a database anyway. You can also use an in-memory database like Derby or H2.
https://www.h2database.com/
https://db.apache.org/derby/
With some effort you can create a custom collection with multi-indexed properties also, but it is not worth the pain.

I would use a map of maps, with the first mapping by the name of the property and the second map by its value.
In code:
Map<String, Map<String, PlayerData>> index = new HashMap<>();
To add a mapping:
PlayerData peterData = new PlayerData(
"Peter",
"Peter1234",
"657f6c48-655f-11eb-ae93-0242ac130002");
index.computeIfAbsent("player", k -> new HashMap<>())
.put("Peter", peterData);
index.computeIfAbsent("username", k -> new HashMap<>())
.put("Peter1234", peterData);
index.computeIfAbsent("uuid", k -> new HashMap<>())
.put("657f6c48-655f-11eb-ae93-0242ac130002", peterData);
This navigates to the different inner maps (one per indexed property) by means of the Map.computeIfAbsent method, which creates an empty inner map and puts it into the outer map if it doesn't exist, or returns it if already present. Then, we add the mapping to the inner map by using Map.put as usual.
To remove a mapping:
index.computeIfAbsent("username", k -> new HashMap<>()).remove("Peter1234");
This is completely dynamic, as you don't have to change the data structure when you need to map by more properties. Instead, all you have to do is add mappings as needed.
The downside of this approach is that you'd need to use strings for the keys of the inner maps, but I think this is a reasonable trade-off.

Map with custom object as key to DataFrame in Apache Spark

I'm having trouble with creating a DataFrame from an RDD.
To start off, I'm using Spark to create the data I'm using (via simulations on the workers) and in return I get Report objects.
These Report object consist of two HashMaps where the keys are near identical between the maps and custom made and the values are Integer / Double. Worth noting is that I currently need these keys and maps to efficiently add and update the values during the simulations, so changing this to a "flat" object may lose a lot of efficiency.
public class Key implements Serializable, Comparable<Key> {
private final States states;
private final String event;
private final double age;
...
}
And the States are
public class States implements Serializable, Comparable<States> {
private String stateOne;
private String stateTwo;
...
}
The states used to be Enums, but as it turns out, DataFrame doesn't like that. (The Strings are still set from Enums to ensure the values are correct.)
The problem is that I want to convert these maps to DataFrames so that I can use SQL etc to manipulate/filter the data.
I am able to create DataFrames by creating a Bean like so
public class Event implements Serializable {
private String stateOne;
private String stateTwo;
private String event;
private Double age;
private Integer value;
...
}
with getters and setters, but is there a way that I can just use Tuple2 (or something similar) to create my DataFrame? Which could even give me a nice structure for the db?
I have tried using Tuple2 like this
JavaRDD<Report> reports = dataSet.map(new SimulationFunction(REPLICATIONS_PER_WORKER)).cache();
JavaRDD<Tuple2<Key, Integer>> events = reports.flatMap(new FlatMapFunction<Report, Tuple2<Key, Integer>>() {
#Override
public Iterable<Tuple2<Key, Integer>> call(Report t) throws Exception {
List<Tuple2<Key, Integer>> list = new ArrayList<>(t.getEvents().size());
for(Entry<Key, Integer> entry : t.getEvents().entrySet()) {
list.add(new Tuple2<>(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue()));
}
return list;
}
});
DataFrame schemaEvents = sqlContext.createDataFrame(events, ????);
But I don't know what to put where the question marks are.
Hopefully I've made myself clear enough and that you'll be able to shed some light on this. Thank you in advance!

As zero323 says, it's not possible to do what I'm trying to do. I'll just stick with the beans from now on.

Using Realm.io to store money values

I'm starting to play with Realm.io in an Android app that I'm writing. In one of my data objects, I'm required to store a currency value. Previously I had stored the value internally as a BigDecimal value and then converted that too and from a double value when moving in and out of the database.
I have always been told that it is a bad idea to store currency values in a double because of the way that they are handled.
Unfortunately, Realm.io doesn't support the storage and retrieval of BigDecimal objects.
Is the best solution to write my own currency class that extends RealmObject and keeps that as a member variable of by data object?

Emanuele from Realm here.
You are right, using floats or doubles for currency is a bad idea.
We don't support BigDecimal for now, and before we do we will have to see how that plays in relation to all other language bindings since we want realm files to be compatible across all the supported platforms.
Christian's idea is good, but I see the conversion to and from String to be a bit slow. If you don't need the arbitrary precision property of BigDecimal you could use long and multiply/divide by the factor your required precision calls for. This would also save a lot of space in terms of the size of the Realm file since integer values are bit packed.

That could work, but would probably be suboptimal if do calculations on your current BigDecimal objects.
You could also use the #Ignore annotation to provide a wrapper method for your custom objects like this:
public class Money extends RealmObject {
private String dbValue;
#Ignore private BigDecimal value;
public String getDbValue() {
return dbValue;
}
public void setDbValue(String dbValue) {
this.dbValue = dbValue;
}
public BigDecimal getValue() {
return new BigDecimal(getDbValue());
}
public void setValue(BigDecimal value) {
setDbValue(value.toString());
}
}
It is not perfect as you need to expose the *dbValue() methods, but it should work.
I would also suggest going to https://github.com/realm/realm-java/issues and make a feature request for this as BigDecimal is probably one of those java classes used by so many that it could warrant native Realm support, just like Date has.

What I do is store it as long
I have defined in my application a constant like so:
public static final BigDecimal MONEY_PRECISION = new BigDecimal(1000);
and when I need to store a big decimal it goes like this:
public class MoneyClass extends RealmObject {
long _price = 0;
public void set_price(BigDecimal price) {
this._price = price.longValue() * App.MONEY_PRECISION.longValue();
}
public BigDecimal get_price() {
return new BigDecimal(_price).divide(App.MONEY_PRECISION, 0, 0);
}
}
In theory this should be faster than saving it on strings , but I haven't really looked at the realm code much

My solution:
Define Interface:
public interface RealmConvert {
void convertToDB();
void convertToObj();
}
Define Entity:
#Ignore
private BigDecimal balance;
private String balanceStr;
#Override public void convertToDB() {
if (getBalance() != null) {
setBalanceStr(getBalance().toString());
}
}
#Override public void convertToObj() {
if (getBalanceStr() != null) {
setBalance(new BigDecimal(getBalanceStr()));
}
}
Before you copyToRealm:call method convertToDB
When you need to use the entity: call method convert obj
It's not an elegant solution, but it works.
Christian Melchior's answer doesn't work in my app.

How to build a complex, hierarchic immutable data structure in Java?

I'm building a Java library for a customer, and one of the things they want is a data representation of a particular set of standards they work with. I don't want to reveal my customer's interests, but if he were an alchemist, he might want the following:
Elements
Fire
Name="Fire"
Physical
Temperature=451
Color="Orange"
Magical
Domain="Strength"
Water
Name="Water"
Physical
Color="Blue"
Earth
Name="Earth"
Magical
Domain="Stability"
Ordinality=1
I need to be able to access various data elements by name, such as:
Elements.Earth.Name
Elements.Water.Physical.Color
I also need to be able to iterate through attributes, as:
for (MagicalType attrib : Elements.Fire.Magical)
{
...
}
I have actually been able to create this data structure, and I can do everything I've asked for above -- though I had to create separate arrays for the iteration, so really what I do looks more like:
for (MagicalType attrib : Elements.Fire.MagicalAuxArray)
Unfortunately I haven't been able to meet my last requirement: the entire data structure must be immutable. I have tried repeatedly, and scoured the web looking for examples, but so far I haven't been able to accomplish this in any reasonable manner. Note that the final data structure will be quite large; I'm really hoping to avoid a solution that is too repetitious or creates too many public symbols.
I am a very experienced programmer, less experienced with Java. Can anyone suggest how I might represent the above data to meet all my requirements?

A few ways that come to mind immediately:
Don't provide setter methods for your object. You users can only create the object via a constructor and once created, it cannot be modified. This goes for other state-modification methods as well. If you want to avoid a very large parameter-list in your constructor, you can use the Builder pattern (described in Effective Java by Joshua Bloch (2nd Ed))
When returning collections, make defensive copies. In this case use a List instead of an array. That way you can do return new ArrayList<MagicalType>(MagicalAuxList) instead of return MagicalAuxList. This way people who use the class won't be able to modify the collection. One caveat here. If your array contains complex objects, they must be immutable as well.
For immutable collections, you can also try using the unmodifiableCollection static method (there are similar static-methods for lists, sets, etc. - use whichever one is appropriate for you) to convert your collection when you return it. This is an alternative to defensive copying.

Why do you use arrays? Wouldn't immutable collections (e.g. from Google Guava) do a better job?

You can use Iterable in your public API. Cleaner than Collections with all the mutators that you have to suppress. (unfortunately Iterator has a remove() method(?!) but that's just one)
public final Iterable<MagicalType> magics;
for(MagicalType magic : magics) ...

you could try the code below that uses final, enums and unmodifiable maps. but that does not let you access by name since you need to do a get from the map. you could probably do that in groovy.
import java.util.*;
enum Color {
red, green, blue;
}
class Physical {
Physical(final Double temperature, final Color color) {
this.temperature = temperature;
this.color = color;
final Map<String, Object> map=new LinkedHashMap<String, Object>();
map.put("temperature", temperature);
map.put("color", color);
this.map=Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
final Double temperature;
final Color color;
final Map<String, Object> map;
}
class Magical {
Magical(final String domain, final Integer ordinality) {
this.domain = domain;
this.ordinality = ordinality;
final Map<String, Object> map=new LinkedHashMap<String, Object>();
map.put("domain", domain);
map.put("ordinality", ordinality);
this.map=Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
final String domain;
final Integer ordinality;
final Map<String, Object> map;
}
public enum Elements {
earth("Earth", new Magical("Stability", 1), null), air("Air", null, null), fire("Fire", new Magical("Strength", null), new Physical(451., Color.red)), water(
"Water", null, new Physical(null, Color.blue));
Elements(final String name, final Magical magical, final Physical physical) {
this.name = name;
this.magical = magical;
this.physical = physical;
}
public static void main(String[] arguments) {
System.out.println(Elements.earth.name);
System.out.println(Elements.water.physical.color);
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : Elements.water.physical.map.entrySet())
System.out.println(entry.getKey() + '=' + entry.getValue());
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : Elements.earth.magical.map.entrySet())
System.out.println(entry.getKey() + '=' + entry.getValue());
}
final String name;
final Magical magical;
final Physical physical;
}