I have a MultiValueMap like
{3=[c-2, c-2], 2=[b-1, b-1], 1=[a-1, a-2, a-3]}
At one point I have to update a single value of a specific key
for example I have to update the key 2 like
2=[u-1,u-2]
how can i do this?
I've never used that library - but I would expect these two examples to do what you need:
multiMap.getCollection(2).clear();
multiMap.putAll(2, Arrays.asList("u-1", "u-2"));
Or
Collection c = multiMap.getCollection(2);
c.clear();
Collections.addAll(c, "u-1", "u-2");
The safest way is to call getCollection() to retrieve the current mapping, remove(key) to clear that mapping, iterate the retrieved collection to re-insert values that you want to keep, and/or add the new values.
If you know the type of collection used for a mapping (because you've called the constructor that takes collectionFactory), you could get the collection and update it directly.
Related
Looking at the documentation, it seems like I could use either a ListState or a ValueState<List<String>> to store state. For example the code below:
// Use ListState
ListStateDescriptor<String> lDescriptor = new ListStateDescriptor<String>
("testListState", TypeInformation.of(new TypeHint<String>() {}));
ListState<String> testListState = getRuntimeContext().getListState(lDescriptor);
// Use ValueState
ValueStateDescriptor<List<String>> testDescriptor =
new ValueStateDescriptor<List<String>>("testList",
TypeInformation.of(new TypeHint<List<String>>() {}));
ValueState<List<String>> testState = getRuntimeContext().getState(testDescriptor);
If I need to store a unique list of elements tied to each key, would there be a benefit of using one over the other? The downside of using ListState would be first converting the Iterable to a List<> if I need to modify it before saving the list whereas I could just retrieve the list directly if I use ValueState.
I only use ValueState if I only want store one value to each key. You can use it to store lists, but the code will be more verbose.
If you use ValueState, you must get the value, update the list, and update the value but if you use ListState you can manage it directly
I have been using a HashMap which handles key / value pairs. But, now i need to handle key: value , value. Is it possible to have one key with 2 values ?
can you recommend a data structure/collection or strategy for me?
Yes you can, assuming this is c++, you can have
std::unordered_map<key, std::pair<value, value>>;
You can make the std::pair whatever type you'd like them to be.
What'd make more sense to do is to make an object to hold your two values, like HashMap<KeyType, ContainerObject> map.
In container object, you can use something like a list, or your own defined object that's made to just hold whatever two values you need. This way, you can use the HashMap and just access whatever values you need through the object that holds them.
I have an object so that
class MyObj{
public long id_1;
...
}
My HBM (hibernate mapping file) tells that this id_1 is my Id. Now what i want to do is to cache this entity in HashMap so that HashMap<MyObj, NestObj> i.e., MyObj will become the key for the hashMap.
Now the question that I wanted to ask
I want to make sure that even though i have saved the whole object as the key, I want to keep object retrieval/storing in the hashmap based on the MyObj.id_1 value. The easiest way i can do so is to after retrieving all objects, I have to do a for loop to add them in a map as Map <Integer, MyObj> but in that case i would have maintain two maps (one for MyObj and other for NestedObj) which i want to avoid.
How can i dictate my HashMap to use MyObj.id_1 column to use as comparator, hash etc. Shall i override hash and equal function ? But if i do so, would it affect hibnerate comparison while storing/retrieving entities ?
Info about network interfaces comes from several servers and must be shown in the table. Each interface must have name and serverName, they're not unique, but pair of them is.
Problem: Information comes every second, and I need to update fields of each interface with new data. So I need to get certain (identified by name and serverName) interface from some list with minimum effort (resources). Table works only with observableList, but searching through it is the overkill. It can contain thousand of interface objects.
Should I create own realization of list, which can be flatten to observableList, or the best way will be to hold HashMap<String, NetInterface> of each server (key is interface's name) with refences from observableList?
HashMap>
use as auto increment for Integer.
The best way will be using the unique thing(name+server name) as the key of your Hash Map.
Use a Map<String, Map<String, NetInterface>, where the outer key is the name and the inner key is the server name.
I've got loads of the following to implement.
validateParameter(field_name, field_type, field_validationMessage, visibleBoolean);
Instead of having 50-60 of these in a row, is there some form of nested hashmap/4d array I can use to build it up and loop through them?
Whats the best approach for doing something like that?
Thanks!
EDIT: Was 4 items.
What you could do is create a new Class that holds three values. (The type, the boolean, and name, or the fourth value (you didn't list it)). Then, when creating the HashMap, all you have to do is call the method to get your three values. It may seem like more work, but all you would have to do is create a simple loop to go through all of the values you need. Since I don't know exactly what it is that you're trying to do, all I can do is provide an example of what I'm trying to do. Hope it applies to your problem.
Anyways, creating the Class to hold the three(or four) values you need.
For example,
Class Fields{
String field_name;
Integer field_type;
Boolean validationMessageVisible;
Fields(String name, Integer type, Boolean mv) {
// this.field_name = name;
this.field_type = type;
this.validationMessageVisible = mv;
}
Then put them in a HashMap somewhat like this:
HashMap map = new HashMap<String, Triple>();
map.put(LOCAL STRING FOR NAME OF FIELD, new Field(new Integer(YOUR INTEGER),new Boolean(YOUR BOOLEAN)));
NOTE: This is only going to work as long as these three or four values can all be stored together. For example if you need all of the values to be stored separately for whatever reason it may be, then this won't work. Only if they can be grouped together without it affecting the function of the program, that this will work.
This was a quick brainstorm. Not sure if it will work, but think along these lines and I believe it should work out for you.
You may have to make a few edits, but this should get you in the right direction
P.S. Sorry for it being so wordy, just tried to get as many details out as possible.
The other answer is close but you don't need a key in this case.
Just define a class to contain your three fields. Create a List or array of that class. Loop over the list or array calling the method for each combination.
The approach I'd use is to create a POJO (or some POJOs) to store the values as attributes and validate attribute by attribute.
Since many times you're going to have the same validation per attribute type (e.g. dates and numbers can be validated by range, strings can be validated to ensure they´re not null or empty, etc), you could just iterate on these attributes using reflection (or even better, using annotations).
If you need to validate on the POJO level, you can still reuse these attribute-level validators via composition, while you add more specific validations are you´re going up in the abstraction level (going up means basic attributes -> pojos -> pojos that contain other pojos -> etc).
Passing several basic types as parameters of the same method is not good because the parameters themselves don't tell much and you can easily exchange two parameters of the same type by accident in the method call.