Develop Reference

values of a object stored in a linked list printing but not useable

I am fairly new to java and working on a project to simulate a CPU scheduler in Java and i am using a linked list to store each process object that is read in from a external master list. When I test print the processes and the variables they contain, everything comes out as expected but whenever I try and do something with them it stops working.
public class process
String ID;
int Arrive;
int ExecSize;
int Execstore;
int Tstart;
int Tend;
int quant;
public process(String ID,int Arrive,int ExecSize) {
this.ID = ID;
this.Arrive = Arrive;
this.ExecSize = ExecSize;
this.Execstore=ExecSize;
this.Tend = 0;
this.Tstart = 0;
this.quant = 4;
}
public void setquant(int update) {
this.quant = update;
}
public int getquant() {
return quant;
}
public void setExecSize(int update) {
this.ExecSize = update;
}
public void setTend(int update) {
this.Tend = update;
}
public void setTstart(int update) {
this.Tstart = update;
}
String getID() {
return ID;
}
int getArrive() {
return Arrive;
}
int getExecSize() {
return ExecSize;
}
int getTstart() {
return Tstart;
}
int getTend() {
return Tend;
}
int getExecstore() {
return Execstore;
}
and this is the class used for the simulation
public class fcfs {
int disp;
int Ttotal = 0;
int Exec;
int Turn;
int Wait;
String output;
LinkedList<process> Que = new LinkedList<process>();
LinkedList<process> Quecleared = new LinkedList<process>();
public fcfs(LinkedList<process> B,int D) {
Que.addAll(B);
disp=D;
}
public void run()
{
while (Que != null)
{
Ttotal = Ttotal + disp;
System.out.println(Que.getFirst().getExecSize());
Exec=Que.getFirst().getExecSize();
output += String.format("T%d: %s\n",Ttotal,Que.getFirst().getID());
Que.getFirst().setTstart(Ttotal);
Ttotal = Ttotal+Exec;
Que.getFirst().setTend(Ttotal);
Quecleared.add(Que.poll());
}
}
So whenever i use System.out.println I get the expected result that I read into the list. But anything else I try to do in reference to elements of the process object will not work. Any help would be greatly appreciated

while (!Que.isEmpty())
{
Ttotal = Ttotal + disp;
System.out.println(Que.peekFirst().getExecSize());
Exec=Que.peekFirst().getExecSize();
output += String.format("T%d: %s\n",Ttotal,Que.peekFirst().getID());
Que.peekFirst().setTstart(Ttotal);
Ttotal = Ttotal+Exec;
Que.peekFirst().setTend(Ttotal);
Quecleared.add(Que.pollFirst());
}
This shouldn't throw an error on Exec = Que.peekFirst().getExecSize();
That error is thrown when your container is empty.
EDIT
In your code you specified the condition Que != null. In java once an object has been instantiated it is no longer considered null even if it IS empty. Most likely what was happening here is you continued iterating through your while(Que != null) loop until you had called Que.poll() on all elements of the list.
After clearing the list you did not exit the loop because Que still was not null. Then calling getFirst() on the empty instance of a LinkedList threw an exception.
A similar situation can be seen here with null vs empty strings:
Difference between null and empty ("") Java String
EDIT 2
It also appears that your class methods for getID(), getExecSize(), etc are passing values by reference as opposed to copying their value. Thus any change you make after passing the reference from queue will alter any copies you tried to make of it.
This can be best avoided by creating a new instance of an object and returning that from your function. Shown in an answer on the question linked below:
class Foo {
private Bar myBar;
public Foo deepCopy() {
Foo newFoo = new Foo();
newFoo.myBar = myBar.clone(); //or new Bar(myBar) or myBar.deepCopy or ...
return newFoo;
}
}
For more information on ways to pass values as opposed to reference values of your pre-existing instances, as well as what a shallow copy actually is, check this link: In Java, what is a shallow copy?

Java: message system needs to be able to pass various objects

I'm writing a messaging system to queue actions for my program to execute. I need to be able to pass various objects by the messages. I currently have a Msg object that accepts (Action enum, Data<?>...object). The Data object is intended to be a wrapper for any object I might pass.
Currently the Data object uses this code, with generics:
public class Data<T> {
private T data;
public Data(T data){
this.data = data;
}
public T getData(){
return data;
}
}
The Msg object takes Data<?>... type, so Msg has a Data<?>[] field.
If getData() is called on a Data<?> object, it returns the Object type. Obviously not ideal.
I need to be able to pass, say, Image objects as well as String objects. I'm certain there's a better way of passing arbitrary data.

The reason you're having trouble is that you're trying to get the static typing system of Java to do something that it can't. Once you convert from a Data<T> to a Data<?>, whatever T was is effectively lost. There's no clean way to get it back.
The quickest way to get it to work (from what you have right now) is to start throwing casts everywhere, like this:
Data<?> d = new Data("Hello");
String contents = (String)d.getData();
This is kind of a terrible idea, so let's go back to the drawing board.
If (ideally), you have all of the types you could ever need ahead of time (i.e. every Data is either a String or an Image or an Integer), then you can pretty easily (though it's a bit tedious) define a Sum type (aka a union if you're coming from C) of the different types of data you'll have to handle. As a class invariant, we assume that exactly one of the fields is non-null, and the rest are null. For this example I'll assume it can be either a String, an Image, or an Integer, but it's fairly simple to add or remove types from Data as necessary.
public class Data {
private Image imgData;
private String stringData;
private Integer intData;
public Data(Image img) {
this.imgData = img;
}
public Data(String stringData) {
this.stringData = stringData;
}
public Data(Integer intData) {
this.intData = intData;
}
public boolean isImage() {
return imageData != null;
}
public boolean isInteger() {
return intData != null;
}
public boolean isString() {
return stringData != null;
}
public Image asImage() {
if(! isImage()) throw new RuntimeException();
return imgData;
}
public Image asString() {
if(! isString()) throw new RuntimeException();
return stringData;
}
public Image asInt() {
if(! isInt()) throw new RuntimeException();
return intData;
}
}
One necessary side effect is that we cannot wrap null without causing exceptional behavior. Is this is desired, it isn't too difficult to modify the class to allow for it.
With this Data class, it's pretty easy to do if-else logic to parse it.
Data d = ....... //Get a data from somewhere
if(d.isImage()) {
Image img = d.asImage();
//...
} else if (d.isString()) {
String string = d.asString();
//...
} else if (d.isInteger()) {
Integer i = d.asInt();
//...
} else {
throw new RuntimeException("Illegal data " + d + " received");
}

If you call getData().getClass() you will get the class or type that was passed, which doesn't seem to me to be the same as an Object. You might not know what you are getting, but you can either find out or define a common interface for everything you might pass. You could for example, call toString() or getClass() on anything passed. Your question is that you are passing any conceivable object, so my question is what are you going to do with it? If you are going to serialize it into a database you don't need know anything about what type it is, otherwise you can test it or call a common interface.
public class PlayData {
class Msg {
private List<Data<?>> message = new ArrayList<Data<?>>();
public void addData(Data<?> datum) { message.add(datum); }
public void printTypes() { for ( Data<?> datum: message ) { System.out.println(datum.getData().getClass()); } }
}
class Data<T> {
private T value;
public Data(T value) { this.value = value; }
public T getData() { return value; }
}
class Listener {
public void receive(Msg msg) { msg.printTypes(); }
}
class Sender {
private Listener listener;
public Sender(Listener listener) { this.listener = listener; }
public void send(Msg msg) { listener.receive(msg); }
}
class MyPacket {
int i;
public MyPacket(int i) { this.i = i; }
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { new PlayData().run(); }
public void run() throws Exception {
Sender sender = new Sender(new Listener());
Msg msg = new Msg();
msg.addData(new Data<String>("testing") );
msg.addData(new Data<MyPacket>(new MyPacket(42)) );
sender.send(msg);
}
}

How to match a java enum

I've an enum like this:
public enum ChartType
{
TABLE(0, false), BAR(1, false), COLUMN(3, false)
private int type;
private boolean stacked;
ChartType(int type, boolean stacked)
{
this.type = type;
this.stacked = stacked;
}
public int getType()
{
return type;
}
public boolean isStacked()
{
return this.stacked;
}
}
I get a charttype (int values like 0,1,3) from the request and want the matching input

Something along these lines. Not sure if syntax is 100 percent, but it demos the idea.
public ChartType getChartypeForValue(int value)
for(ChartType type : ChartType.values()){
if(type.getType() == value){
return type;
}
}
return null;
}

You can add map in your enum to store relationship between type and specific enum value. You can fill it once in static block after all values will be created like:
private static Map<Integer, ChartType> typeMap = new HashMap<>();
static{
for (ChartType chartType: values()){
typeMap.put(chartType.type, chartType);
}
}
then you can add method which will use this map to get value you want, or null if there isn't any
public static ChartType getByType(int type) {
return typeMap.get(type);
}
You can use it like
ChartType element = ChartType.getByType(1);

You should create a static method to retrieve a type by number. With just a few charts like this, it's simplest to do that by just running through all the options. For larger enums, you could create a map for quick lookup. The only thing to watch for here is that any static initializers aren't run until after the values have been created.
Simple approach:
public static ChartType fromType(int type) {
// Or for (ChartType chart : ChartType.getValues())
for (ChartType chart : EnumSet.allOf(ChartType.class)) {
if (chart.type == type) {
return chart;
}
}
return null; // Or throw an exception
}

If you use java 8, use stream() and filter()
int value =2;
Optional<ChartType> chartType = Arrays.asList(ChartType.values()).stream().
filter(c -> c.type == value).findFirst();
if(chartType.isPresent()){
ChartType chartType =chartType.get();
//
}

Define new method:
public ChartType valueOf(int id) {
switch(id) {
case 1:
return TABLE;
case 2:
return BAR;
case 3:
return COLUMN;
}
return null;
}
Example:
ChartType.valueOf(1) // TABLE

Make a Java class generic, but only for two or three types

(I was astonished not to be able to find this question already on stackoverflow, which I can only put down to poor googling on my part, by all means point out the duplicate...)
Here is a toy class that returns the reverse of what you put into it. Currently it works on integers, but would require only very minor changes to work for String.
public class Mirror {
int value;
public int get() {
return reverse(value);
}
private int reverse(int value2) {
String valueString = value + "";
String newString = reverse(valueString);
return Integer.parseInt(newString);
}
private String reverse(String valueString) {
String newString = "";
for (char c : valueString.toCharArray()) {
newString = c + newString;
}
return newString;
}
public void set(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
What I'd like to do is make the class generic, but only for, say, two or three possible types. So what I want to write is:
public class Mirror<X, where X is one of Integer, String, or MagicValue {
X value
public X get(){
[...]
What's the correct syntax? My Google-fu is failing me... :(
EDIT: it appears there isn't a correct syntax and it can't appear to be done, so my main question is: why? this seems like the sort of thing that people might want to do before they made the class truly generic...
EDIT EDIT: Managed to work out the why with some labmates today, so added the relevant why answer below.

Unfortunately java does not provide such functionality directly. However I can suggest you the following work around:
Create parametrized class Mirror with private constructor and 3 static factory methods that create instance of Mirror with specific parameter:
public class Mirror<T> {
private T value
private Mirror(T value) {
this.value = value;
}
public static Mirror<Integer> integerMirror(Integer value) {
return new Mirror(value);
}
public static Mirror<String> stringMirror(String value) {
return new Mirror(value);
}
public static Mirror<MagicValue> magicMirror(MagicValue value) {
return new Mirror(value);
}
}
EDIT
Obviously you can (and probably should) separate the class Mirror from its creating, e.g. put the factory methods to separate class MirrorFactory. In this case the constructor should become package protected.
If you want to support large yet limited number of classes you can implement only one generic factory method
public static <T> Mirror<T> createMirror(T value) {
checkTypeSupported(value);
return new Mirror(value);
}
Method checkTypeSupported(value); may use some kind of metadatat (e.g. properties, JSON etc file) to get supported types. In this case however you will not enjoy the compile time validation.
Other solution is to require that all supported types extend certain base class or implement interface:
public class Mirror<T extends MyInterface> {}
But this solution seems does not match your requirements since you need Integer, String and MagicValue.

Various ways to do what you need...Here is another option. No getter or setter.
One instance of Mirror for each type to be handled. One reverse() method.
Tweak as necessary. Add error checking/handling.
public class Mirror<T> {
public T reverse(final T value) {
T result = null;
while (true) {
if (value instanceof String) {
System.out.println("Do for String");
result = value;
break;
}
if (value instanceof Integer) {
System.out.println("Do for Integer");
result = value;
break;
}
if (value instanceof JFrame) {
System.out.println("Do for JFrame");
result = value;
break;
}
throw new RuntimeException("ProgramCheck: Missing handler for type " + value.getClass().getSimpleName());
}
return result;
}
Tester:
final Mirror<String> testerString = new Mirror<>();
testerString.reverse("string");
final Mirror<Integer> testerInteger = new Mirror<>();
testerInteger.reverse(41);
testerInteger.reverse(42);
testerInteger.reverse(43);
final Mirror<JFrame> testerJFrame = new Mirror<>();
testerJFrame.reverse(new JFrame());
Results:
Do for String
Do for Integer
Do for Integer
Do for Integer
Do for JFrame

An alternative would be to just accept the fact that you have no control over the type hierarchy of String/Integer and create an interface to give a common type for the classes you do have control over
public int reverse(int value) {
return Integer.valueOf(new StringBuilder(value + "").reverse()
.toString());
}
public String reverse(String value) {
return new StringBuilder(value + "").reverse().toString();
}
public <T extends Reversible> T reverse(T value) {
value.reverse();
return value;
}
public interface Reversible {
public void reverse();
}

And if you only want one instance of the Mirror class...use a generic method.
public class Mirror {
public <T> T reverse(final T value) {
T result = null;
while (true) {
if (value instanceof String) {
System.out.println("Do for String");
result = value;
break;
}
if (value instanceof Integer) {
System.out.println("Do for Integer");
result = value;
break;
}
if (value instanceof JFrame) {
System.out.println("Do for JFrame");
result = value;
break;
}
throw new RuntimeException("ProgramCheck: Missing handler for type " + value.getClass().getSimpleName());
}
return result;
}
tester:
final Mirror tester = new Mirror();
String s = tester.reverse("string");
Integer i41 = tester.reverse(41);
Integer i42 = tester.reverse(42);
Integer i43 = tester.reverse(43);
JFrame j = tester.reverse(new JFrame());
results:
Do for String
Do for Integer
Do for Integer
Do for Integer
Do for JFrame

You can't bound a generic parameter to range of values. You could however restrict it programatically:
public abstract class AbstractMirror<T> {
T value;
protected AbstractMirror(Class<T> clazz) {
if (clazz != Integer.class && clazz != String.class && clazz != MagicValue.class)
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
public abstract T get();
protected abstract T reverse(T value);
}

You can use so-called "witness" types to make the compiler do what you want.
public interface Reversible< T > {
public static final class IntReversible implements Reversible< Integer > {}
public static final class StringReversible implements Reversible< String > {}
public static final class MagicReversible implements Reversible< MagicValue > {}
}
public abstract class Mirror< T, R extends Reversible< T > > {
// ...
}
public class IntMirror extends Mirror< Integer, IntReversible > {
// ...
}
However, the reason your example doesn't make any sense is because you gain virtually nothing from using a generic in this context. What possible algorithm will reverse an integer or a string or a MagicValue without resorting to awful run-time type-checking and casting? The code will be all three reverse algorithms, wrapped with a hideous if-ladder.

So here is the why (worked it out at work)
Generics are always from a subclass, although it looks like
Public class Thing<T> {}
will allow any type in there, really what it's saying is that it will allow any subtype of Object. I.e.
Public class Thing<T extends Object> {}
This is effectively working as inheritance, and indeed, the Oracle Website shows us this happening when the syntactic sugar is removed:
In the following example, the generic Node class uses a bounded type
parameter:
public class Node<T extends Comparable<T>> {
private T data;
private Node<T> next;
public Node(T data, Node<T> next) {
this.data = data;
this.next = next;
}
public T getData() { return data; }
// ...
}
The Java compiler replaces the bounded type parameter T with the first
bound class, Comparable:
public class Node {
private Comparable data;
private Node next;
public Node(Comparable data, Node next) {
this.data = data;
this.next = next;
}
public Comparable getData() { return data; }
// ...
}
...and so the answer turns out that the reason you can't limit the types in this way is because it effectively turns into multiple Inheritance, which is nasty, and which I'm happy to avoid....

Java: a variable "might have already been initialized", but I don't understand how

First some context: all the code pasted below is within another class declared as public class TheClass extends SomeProprietaryClass. I cannot declare these classes in another file for various reasons... And log messages are in French. And I'm a "final happy" kind of programmer. Which is at the core of the problem here...
Now, the code... (probably too much of it -- stripping on demand to only keep the relevant parts)
A custom Exception:
private static final class BreadCrumbException
extends Exception
{
private BreadCrumbException(final String message)
{
super(message);
}
private BreadCrumbException(final String message, final Throwable cause)
{
super(message, cause);
}
}
An enum for "materializing" the visibility of a breadcrumb element:
private enum Visibility
{
MAINPAGE("R"),
MENU("M"),
BREADCRUMB("A"),
COMMERCIAL("C");
private static final Map<String, Visibility> reverseMap
= new HashMap<String, Visibility>();
private static final String characterClass;
static {
final StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("[");
for (final Visibility v: values()) {
reverseMap.put(v.flag, v);
sb.append(v.flag);
}
sb.append("]");
characterClass = sb.toString();
}
private final String flag;
Visibility(final String flag)
{
this.flag = flag;
}
static EnumSet<Visibility> fromBC(final String element)
{
final EnumSet<Visibility> result = EnumSet.noneOf(Visibility.class);
for (final String s: reverseMap.keySet())
if (element.contains(s))
result.add(reverseMap.get(s));
return result;
}
static String asCharacterClass()
{
return characterClass;
}
static String asString(final EnumSet<Visibility> set)
{
final StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for (final Visibility v: set)
sb.append(v.flag);
return sb.toString();
}
#Override
public String toString()
{
return flag;
}
}
A breadcrumb element:
private static class BreadCrumbElement
{
private static final Pattern p
= Pattern.compile(String.format("(%s+)(\\d+)",
Visibility.asCharacterClass()));
private final String element;
private final String menuID;
private final EnumSet<Visibility> visibility;
BreadCrumbElement(final String element)
{
final Matcher m = p.matcher(element);
if (!m.matches())
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Élément de fil d'ariane invalide: " + element);
this.element = element;
visibility = EnumSet.copyOf(Visibility.fromBC(m.group(1)));
menuID = m.group(2);
}
public boolean visibleFrom(final Visibility v)
{
return visibility.contains(v);
}
#Override
public boolean equals(final Object o)
{
if (this == o)
return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass())
return false;
final BreadCrumbElement that = (BreadCrumbElement) o;
return element.equals(that.element);
}
#Override
public int hashCode()
{
return element.hashCode();
}
#Override
public String toString()
{
return element;
}
public String getMenuID()
{
return menuID;
}
}
A breadcrumb:
private static class BreadCrumb
implements Iterable<BreadCrumbElement>
{
private static final BreadCrumb EMPTY = new BreadCrumb();
private final List<BreadCrumbElement> elements
= new LinkedList<BreadCrumbElement>();
private String bc;
BreadCrumb(final String bc)
throws BreadCrumbException
{
final Set<BreadCrumbElement> set = new HashSet<BreadCrumbElement>();
BreadCrumbElement e;
for (final String element: bc.split("\\s+")) {
e = new BreadCrumbElement(element);
if (!set.add(e))
throw new BreadCrumbException("Élément dupliqué "
+ "dans le fil d'Ariane : " + element);
elements.add(e);
}
if (elements.isEmpty())
throw new BreadCrumbException("Fil d'ariane vide!");
if (!elements.get(0).visibleFrom(Visibility.MAINPAGE))
throw new BreadCrumbException("Le fil d'Ariane ne "
+ "commence pas à l'accueil : " + bc);
set.clear();
this.bc = bc;
}
private BreadCrumb()
{
}
BreadCrumb reverse()
{
final BreadCrumb ret = new BreadCrumb();
ret.elements.addAll(elements);
Collections.reverse(ret.elements);
ret.bc = StringUtils.join(ret.elements, " ");
return ret;
}
public Iterator<BreadCrumbElement> iterator()
{
return elements.iterator();
}
#Override
public String toString()
{
return bc;
}
}
The interface to a breadcrumb renderer:
public interface BreadCrumbRender
{
List<CTObjectBean> getBreadCrumb()
throws Throwable;
String getTopCategory();
String getMenuRoot();
String getContext();
}
The implementation of the interface above which is the source of my problems:
private class CategoryBreadCrumbRender
implements BreadCrumbRender
{
private final BreadCrumb bc;
private final CTObject object;
CategoryBreadCrumbRender(final CTObject object)
{
this.object = object;
final String property;
// FIELD_BC is declared as a private static final String earlier on.
// logger is also a private static final Logger
try {
property = object.getProperty(FIELD_BC);
} catch (Throwable throwable) {
logger.fatal("Impossible d'obtenir le champ " + FIELD_BC
+ " de l'objet", throwable);
bc = BreadCrumb.EMPTY;
return;
}
try {
bc = new BreadCrumb(property);
} catch (BreadCrumbException e) {
logger.fatal("Impossible d'obtenir le fil d'Ariane", e);
bc = BreadCrumb.EMPTY; // <-- HERE
}
}
// ....
At the point marked // <-- HERE above, Intellij IDEA, which I use, and javac (1.6.0.29) both tell me that Variable bc might already have been assigned to, which is considered an error (and indeed, the code does not compile).
Trouble is, I do not understand why... My reasoning is the following:
in the first try/catch block (and yes, .getProperty() does throw Throwable), when an exception is caught, bc gets assigned to successfully, and then I return, so far so good;
in the second try/catch block, the constructor may fail, in which case I assign an empty breadcrumb, so it should be OK, even though bc is final: the assignment doesn't happen (?) in the try block but happens in the catch block instead...
Except no, it doesn't. As both IDEA and javac disagree with me, they are certainly right. But why?
(and also, BreadCrumb.EMPTY is declared private static final in the class, I wonder how come I can access it at all... Subsidiary question)
EDIT: there is a known bug with the final keyword (here, thanks to #MiladNaseri for linking to it), however it should be noted that in this bug, variable v is only ever assigned in catch blocks -- but in the code above, I assign it in try blocks and only assign it in catch blocks if an exception is thrown. Also, it should be noted that the error only occurs in the second catch block.

Okay, suppose that in the first try block, when doing property = object.getProperty(FIELD_BC); an exception occurs. So, JVM will enter the catch block, and initialize bc along the way.
Then in the second try block, also an exception occurs, resulting in BreadCrumb.EMPTY being assigned to bc, effectively overriding its original value.
Now, that is how bc might have already been initialized. I hope you see where I'm coming from.
Since the JAVAC analysis engine does not draw a distinction between one or many statements inside the try block, it does not see your case any different than the below:
try {
bc = null;
String x = null;
System.out.println(x.toString());
} catch (Throwable e) {
bc = null;
}
In which case, bc will be assigned twice. In other words, JAVAC won't care that where the source of the Throwable lies, it only cares that it can be there, and that bc might undergo a successful assignment in that try block.

I don't think the analysis is deep enough to really understand that there is only one statement in the try block, and the diagnostic is issued no matter what, so that's why you're seeing it in your case.

Try this instead:
BreadCrumb tmp = null;
try {
tmp = new BreadCrumb(property);
} catch (BreadCrumbException e) {
logger.fatal("Impossible d'obtenir le fil d'Ariane", e);
tmp = BreadCrumb.EMPTY;
}
bc = tmp;