I would like to have a class that emulates the EnumMap, but stores int values instead of some kind of object. Now obviously you could make an EnumMap that maps to Integers, but that's a lot of autoboxing that I'd like to avoid if it's possible to do so.
So I'd like a class like this:
public class EnumIntAttributeMap
{
enum Attribute
{
Height, Weight;
}
private final int[] values;
public EnumIntAttributeMap()
{
this.values = new int[Attribute.values().length];
}
public int getValue(Attribute a)
{
return this.values[a.ordinal()];
}
public void setValue(Attribute a, int value)
{
this.values[a.ordinal()] = value;
}
}
Except I'd like to make a version that's generic across all enums. Now, since the .values() and .ordinal() methods are implicitly added by the compiler, it seems like the only way to access them would be with reflection, which would eat up the performance gains I'm trying to gain by avoiding auto-boxing, but maybe there's something I'm missing.
Any thoughts?
EDIT:
I think my initial question was unclear. I would like a class that takes (as a generic parameter) an enum, and then can use the same operations.
So I could use it with any kind of enum without needing to write the class for each kind of enum each time. Such as:
enum Attribute { Height, Weight }
enum AbilityScore {Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha}
IdealClass<Attribute> attributeVersion;
IdealClass<AbilityScore> abilityScoreVersion;
and so on.
This is a solution:
public class EnumIntMap<E extends Enum<E>> {
private final int[] values;
public EnumIntMap(Class<E> cls)
{
this.values = new int[cls.getEnumConstants().length];
}
public int getValue(E a)
{
return this.values[a.ordinal()];
}
public void setValue(E a, int value)
{
this.values[a.ordinal()] = value;
}
}
You will have to initialize the map with the class of the enum as well.
enum Attribute { Height, Weight }
enum AbilityScore {Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha}
EnumIntMap<Attribute> attributeVersion = new EnumIntMap(Attribute.class);
EnumIntMap<AbilityScore> abilityScoreVersion = new EnumIntMap(AbilityScore.class);
The key to doing this genetically is knowing the generic bound for an enum:
<T extends Enum<T>>
Your class can work for any enum as follows:
public class EnumIntAttributeMap<T extends Enum<T>> {
private final int[] values;
private final Class<T> clazz;
public EnumIntAttributeMap(Class<T> clazz) {
this.clazz = clazz;
this.values = new int[clazz.getEnumConstants().length];
}
public int getValue(T a) {
return this.values[a.ordinal()];
}
public void setValue(T a, int value) {
this.values[a.ordinal()] = value;
}
}
Note that the constructor requires a type token, which is required due to java's runtime type erasure.
All java Enum implicitly extend java.lang.Enum, so I think what you are looking for is:
public class EnumIntAttributeMap<E extends java.lang.Enum<E>> {
// [...]
}
Read this: Oracle's Doc on Enums.
I think you could do something that is similar to the Planets example:
public enum YourEnum{
HEIGHT (0),
WIDTH (1);
private final int index;
YourEnum(int index) {
this.index = index;
}
public int index() { return index; }
}
This is what I personally use and gives me nice standardization in the APIs
Common Interface :
public interface IValueEnum<T> {
T value();
}
Enums implement it like this:
public enum MyEnum implements IValueEnum<Integer> {
WIDTH(1),
HEIGHT(2);
private final int value;
MyEnum(int value) { this.value = value; }
#Override
public Integer value() {
return value;
}
}
Now you can get the final value by going MyEnum.WIDTH.value(), etc. Since it's using generics other enums could use Longs or Strings or what have you. It allows you to have a single simple Enum based interface in the application. It also allows you to be completely generic in your Map, etc.
EDIT: Based on New Example
public class IdealClass<T extends Enum> {
T enumValue;
public IdealClass() {
}
}
Related
I want to create a method, that:
Takes the type of an enum and a String as arguments
The String is the name of one specific enum instance
Returns the enum instance that fits that name.
What I have tried:
In class TestUtil.java:
public static <E extends Enum<E>> E mapToEnum(Enum<E> mappingEnum, String data) {
return mappingEnum.valueOf(E, data); // Not working, needs Class of Enum and String value
}
The enum:
public enum TestEnum {
TEST1("A"),
TEST2("B");
private String value;
private TestEnum(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
How it should work (For example in main method):
TestEnum x = TestUtil.mapToEnum(TestEnum.class, "TEST1"); // TEST1 is the name of the first enum instance
The problem is, that I can't figure out what I need to pass into the mapToEnum method, so that I can get the valueOf from that Enum.
If the code you provided is acceptable:
public static <E extends Enum<E>> E mapToEnum(Enum<E> mappingEnum, String data) {
return mappingEnum.valueOf(E, data); // Not working, needs Class of Enum and String value
}
Then all you have to do is fix it.
Here's the code I tested:
static <T extends Enum<T>> T mapToEnum(Class<T> mappingEnum, String data) {
return Enum.valueOf(mappingEnum, data);
}
Usage:
#Test
public void test() {
TestEnum myEnum = mapToEnum(TestEnum.class, "TEST1");
System.out.println(myEnum.value); //prints "A"
}
Strongly suggest using Apache commons-lang library for boiler plate function like this ...
TestEnum x = EnumUtils.getEnum(TestEnum.class, "TEST1");
... which is exactly the code #Fenio demonstrates but handles null or wrong input with a null instead of throwing an Exception.
If you didn't know about this then check out what the rest of the lang3 library holds. I view it as a de-facto standard, saving millions of devs from re-writing minor plumbing utilities.
This is how you can iterate the enum class value and match with the parameter you have passed in the method, please check the below-mentioned code.
enum TestEnum {
TEST1("test1"),
TEST2("test2");
private String value;
private TestEnum(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String getName() {
return value;
}
public static TestEnum mapToEnum(String data) {
for (TestEnum userType : TestEnum.values()) {
if (userType.getName().equals(data)) {
return userType;
}
}
return null;
}
}
Currently I have several enums defined over several classes. They all look similar to the one shown below:
public class ApaMessage {
private String apaMessage;
private final int FIXED_LENGTH_SIZE=39;
public enum ApaFields {
FIELD1(ApaUtils.ApaFieldTypes.POSITION_BASED, null, "field1", 2, 3, false, false),
private final ApaUtils.ApaFieldTypes type;
private final String ApaName;
private final String jsonName;
private final int start;
private final int finish;
private boolean required = false;
private boolean withDelimiter = false;
ApaFields(ApaUtils.ApaFieldTypes type, String ApaName, String jsonName, int start, int finish, boolean required, boolean withDelimiter) {
this.type = type;
this.ApaName = ApaName;
this.jsonName = jsonName;
this.start = start;
this.finish = finish;
this.required = required;
this.withDelimiter = withDelimiter;
}
}
There is also a method defined in ApaMessage:
private HashMap<String,Object> getApaJsonFieldsAndValues() {
HashMap<String, Object> jsonApaData = new HashMap<String, Object>();
for (ApaFields field : ApaFields.values()) {
jsonApaData.put(field.jsonName, getApaFieldValue(field));
}
return jsonApaData;
}
The problem is although there isn't a lot of code, I will soon have 10-20 of these enums. I would like to create an abstract base class where the HashMap method, and other similar methods can be part of. The base class should accept an ApaFields enum and other enums and do what the getApaJsonFieldsAndValues does. The problem is, how can the base class access the passed enum values and the internal fields such as jsonName to do the loop?
I have tried different approaches but the main problem is that the base class cannot seem to access the values. Is there any way around this? Alternatively, is there a better approach? Thanks
EDIT:
Basically I would like something like this in the base class. Note the below doesn't compile.
public abstract class ApaRequestMessage {
private Class<? extends Enum<?>> apaRequestMessageFields;
private String apaMessage;
public <T extends Enum<T>> void ApaRequest(Object apaRequestFields, String apaMessage) {
apaRequestMessageFields = (Class<? extends Enum<?>>) apaRequestFields;
this.apaMessage = apaMessage;
for (Field field: apaRequestMessageFields.values()) {
//this doesn't work because it cannot access the values of apaRequestMessageFields
}
}
}
And then call the base method as follows, although not sure if this is correct, where ApaFields is the inner enum defined above.
ApaRequest(ApaFields.class, somestringmessage);
I came across something similar when trying to define a db schema using enums as columns in the table. I eventually took this route.
Define a base class with sufficient generic signature to ensure the enum is properly built.
public class Table<Column extends Enum<? extends Column>> {
// Name of the table.
protected final String tableName;
// All of the columns in the table. This is actually an EnumSet so very efficient.
protected final Set<Column> columns;
/**
* The base interface for all Column enums.
*/
public interface Columns {
// What type does it have in the database?
public Type getType();
}
// Small list of database types.
public enum Type {
String, Number, Date;
}
public Table(String tableName,
Set<Column> columns) {
this.tableName = tableName;
this.columns = columns;
}
}
Now extend this for each table - here is a simple VersionTable:
public class VersionTable extends Table<VersionTable.Column> {
public enum Column implements Table.Columns {
Version(Table.Type.String),
ReleaseDate(Table.Type.Date);
final Table.Type type;
Column(Table.Type type) {
this.type = type;
}
#Override
public Type getType() {
return type;
}
}
public VersionTable() {
super("Versions", EnumSet.allOf(Column.class));
}
}
Now you have all of the core functionality in the base class and all the sub-classes need to do is implement the interface on the enum.
I realise this does not address the issue of duplicated bolierplate code in all of your enums but it does move alomst all of it elsewhere.
I'm writing a library, which has a predefined set of values for an enum.
Let say, my enum looks as below.
public enum EnumClass {
FIRST("first"),
SECOND("second"),
THIRD("third");
private String httpMethodType;
}
Now the client, who is using this library may need to add few more values. Let say, the client needs to add CUSTOM_FIRST and CUSTOM_SECOND. This is not overwriting any existing values, but makes the enum having 5 values.
After this, I should be able to use something like <? extends EnumClass> to have 5 constant possibilities.
What would be the best approach to achieve this?
You cannot have an enum extend another enum, and you cannot "add" values to an existing enum through inheritance.
However, enums can implement interfaces.
What I would do is have the original enum implement a marker interface (i.e. no method declarations), then your client could create their own enum implementing the same interface.
Then your enum values would be referred to by their common interface.
In order to strenghten the requirements, you could have your interface declare relevant methods, e.g. in your case, something in the lines of public String getHTTPMethodType();.
That would force implementing enums to provide an implementation for that method.
This setting coupled with adequate API documentation should help adding functionality in a relatively controlled way.
Self-contained example (don't mind the lazy names here)
package test;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<HTTPMethodConvertible> blah = new ArrayList<>();
blah.add(LibraryEnum.FIRST);
blah.add(ClientEnum.BLABLABLA);
for (HTTPMethodConvertible element: blah) {
System.out.println(element.getHTTPMethodType());
}
}
static interface HTTPMethodConvertible {
public String getHTTPMethodType();
}
static enum LibraryEnum implements HTTPMethodConvertible {
FIRST("first"),
SECOND("second"),
THIRD("third");
String httpMethodType;
LibraryEnum(String s) {
httpMethodType = s;
}
public String getHTTPMethodType() {
return httpMethodType;
}
}
static enum ClientEnum implements HTTPMethodConvertible {
FOO("GET"),BAR("PUT"),BLAH("OPTIONS"),MEH("DELETE"),BLABLABLA("POST");
String httpMethodType;
ClientEnum(String s){
httpMethodType = s;
}
public String getHTTPMethodType() {
return httpMethodType;
}
}
}
Output
first
POST
Enums are not extensible. To solve your problem simply
turn the enum in a class
create constants for the predefined types
if you want a replacement for Enum.valueOf: track all instances of the class in a static map
For example:
public class MyType {
private static final HashMap<String,MyType> map = new HashMap<>();
private String name;
private String httpMethodType;
// replacement for Enum.valueOf
public static MyType valueOf(String name) {
return map.get(name);
}
public MyType(String name, String httpMethodType) {
this.name = name;
this.httpMethodType = httpMethodType;
map.put(name, this);
}
// accessors
public String name() { return name; }
public String httpMethodType() { return httpMethodType; }
// predefined constants
public static final MyType FIRST = new MyType("FIRST", "first");
public static final MyType SECOND = new MyType("SECOND", "second");
...
}
Think about Enum like a final class with static final instances of itself. Of course you cannot extend final class, but you can use non-final class with static final instances in your library. You can see example of this kind of definition in JDK. Class java.util.logging.Level can be extended with class containing additional set of logging levels.
If you accept this way of implementation, your library code example can be like:
public class EnumClass {
public static final EnumClass FIRST = new EnumClass("first");
public static final EnumClass SECOND = new EnumClass("second");
public static final EnumClass THIRD = new EnumClass("third");
private String httpMethodType;
protected EnumClass(String name){
this.httpMethodType = name;
}
}
Client application can extend list of static members with inheritance:
public final class ClientEnum extends EnumClass{
public static final ClientEnum CUSTOM_FIRST = new ClientEnum("custom_first");
public static final ClientEnum CUSTOM_SECOND = new ClientEnum("custom_second");
private ClientEnum(String name){
super(name);
}
}
I think that this solution is close to what you have asked, because all static instances are visible from client class, and all of them will satisfy your generic wildcard.
We Fixed enum inheritance issue this way, hope it helps
Our App has few classes and each has few child views(nested views), in order to be able to navigate between childViews and save the currentChildview we saved them as enum inside each Class.
but we had to copy paste, some common functionality like next, previous and etc inside each enum.
To avoid that we needed a BaseEnum, we used interface as our base enum:
public interface IBaseEnum {
IBaseEnum[] getList();
int getIndex();
class Utils{
public IBaseEnum next(IBaseEnum enumItem, boolean isCycling){
int index = enumItem.getIndex();
IBaseEnum[] list = enumItem.getList();
if (index + 1 < list.length) {
return list[index + 1];
} else if(isCycling)
return list[0];
else
return null;
}
public IBaseEnum previous(IBaseEnum enumItem, boolean isCycling) {
int index = enumItem.getIndex();
IBaseEnum[] list = enumItem.getList();
IBaseEnum previous;
if (index - 1 >= 0) {
previous = list[index - 1];
}
else {
if (isCycling)
previous = list[list.length - 1];
else
previous = null;
}
return previous;
}
}
}
and this is how we used it
enum ColorEnum implements IBaseEnum {
RED,
YELLOW,
BLUE;
#Override
public IBaseEnum[] getList() {
return values();
}
#Override
public int getIndex() {
return ordinal();
}
public ColorEnum getNext(){
return (ColorEnum) new Utils().next(this,false);
}
public ColorEnum getPrevious(){
return (ColorEnum) new Utils().previous(this,false);
}
}
you could add getNext /getPrevious to the interface too
#wero's answer is very good but has some problems:
the new MyType("FIRST", "first"); will be called before map = new HashMap<>();. in other words, the map will be null when map.add() is called. unfortunately, the occurring error will be NoClassDefFound and it doesn't help to find the problem. check this:
public class Subject {
// predefined constants
public static final Subject FIRST;
public static final Subject SECOND;
private static final HashMap<String, Subject> map;
static {
map = new HashMap<>();
FIRST = new Subject("FIRST");
SECOND = new Subject("SECOND");
}
private final String name;
public Subject(String name) {
this.name = name;
map.put(name, this);
}
// replacement for Enum.valueOf
public static Subject valueOf(String name) {
return map.get(name);
}
// accessors
public String name() {
return name;
}
in an interface, I store constants in this way (I'd like to know what you think of this practice). This is just a dummy example.
interface HttpConstants {
/** 2XX: generally "OK" */
public static final int HTTP_OK = 200;
public static final int HTTP_CREATED = 201;
public static final int HTTP_ACCEPTED = 202;
public static final int HTTP_NOT_AUTHORITATIVE = 203;
public static final int HTTP_NO_CONTENT = 204;
public static final int HTTP_RESET = 205;
public static final int HTTP_PARTIAL = 206;
...
}
Is there a way I can iterate over all constants declared in this interface ?
Using reflection:
Field[] interfaceFields=HttpConstants.class.getFields();
for(Field f:interfaceFields) {
//do something
}
But anyway, if you can redesign your class, I would recomend you to handle a static enum constants construction. So, suposing your class will contain always an int value for every constant:
enum HttpConstants {
HTTP_OK(200), HTTP_CREATED(201), HTTP_ACCEPTED(202),
HTTP_NOT_AUTHORITATIVE(203),HTTP_NO_CONTENT(204),
HTTP_RESET(205), HTTP_PARTIAL(206) /* ... */;
private int value;
HttpConstants(int aValue) {
value=aValue;
}
public int getValue() {
return value;
}
}
Then, to loop on it:
for(HttpConstants val: HttpConstants.values()) {
int value=val.getValue();
//...
}
Thus, avoiding the access to the reflection API.
I would create these constants as an enumeration. Enums in Java can have their own fields and methods, which very convenient for your case. So I would do this the following way:
enum HttpConstant {
HTTP_OK(200),
HTTP_CREATED(201),
HTTP_ACCEPTED(202),
HTTP_NOT_AUTHORITATIVE(203),
HTTP_NO_CONTENT(204),
HTTP_RESET(205),
HTTP_PARTIAL(206);
private final int id;
HttpConstant(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
int getId() {
return id;
}
}
Now the iteration is easy:
for (HttpConstant constant : HttpConstant.values()) {
//Do something with the constant
}
This way it is also easy to add associate some new values with the constants, you just have to add new fields.
Right now you may use reflection:
Field[] interfaceFields = HttpConstants.class.getFields();
for (Field field : interfaceFields) {
int constant = field.getInt(null);
//Do something with the field
}
However, it is better to use the approach with enums because with reflection coding errors result in runtime exceptions instead of compile-time errors.
for(Field f : HttpConstants.class.getFields()){
int constant = f.getInt(null);
}
public enum HttpConstant {
/** 2XX: generally "OK" */
HTTP_OK(200).
HTTP_CREATED(201),
HTTP_ACCEPTED(202),
HTTP_NOT_AUTHORITATIVE(203),
HTTP_NO_CONTENT(204),
HTTP_RESET(205),
HTTP_PARTIAL(206);
private int code;
private HttpConstant(int code) {
this.code = code;
}
public int getCode() {
return code;
}
}
with HttpConstant.values().
Well usually when i have something like that i make a Map in the interface that has the keys - constant names with values constant - values.
And that's how i can iterate over them.
I'd like to know what you think of this practice
Consider using an enum instead of an interface with constants.
enum HttpResultCode {
HTTP_OK(200),
HTTP_CREATED(201),
HTTP_ACCEPTED(202),
HTTP_NOT_AUTHORITATIVE(203),
HTTP_NO_CONTENT(204),
HTTP_RESET(205),
HTTP_PARTIAL(206);
private final int code;
private HttpResultCode(int code) {
this.code = code;
}
public int getCode(int code) {
return code;
}
public static HttpResultCode forCode(int code) {
for (HttpResultCode e : HttpResultCode.values()) {
if (e.code == code) {
return e;
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid code: " + code);
}
}
Have enum with inner fields, kind of map.
Now I need to get enum by its inner field.
Wrote this:
package test;
/**
* Test enum to test enum =)
*/
public enum TestEnum {
ONE(1), TWO(2), THREE(3);
private int number;
TestEnum(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
public TestEnum findByKey(int i) {
TestEnum[] testEnums = TestEnum.values();
for (TestEnum testEnum : testEnums) {
if (testEnum.number == i) {
return testEnum;
}
}
return null;
}
}
But it's not very efficient to look up through all enums each time I need to find appropriate instance.
Is there any other way to do the same?
You can use a static Map<Integer,TestEnum> with a static initializer that populates it with the TestEnum values keyed by their number fields.
Note that findByKey has been made static, and number has also been made final.
import java.util.*;
public enum TestEnum {
ONE(1), TWO(2), SIXTY_NINE(69);
private final int number;
TestEnum(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
private static final Map<Integer,TestEnum> map;
static {
map = new HashMap<Integer,TestEnum>();
for (TestEnum v : TestEnum.values()) {
map.put(v.number, v);
}
}
public static TestEnum findByKey(int i) {
return map.get(i);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(TestEnum.findByKey(69)); // prints "SIXTY_NINE"
System.out.println(
TestEnum.values() == TestEnum.values()
); // prints "false"
}
}
You can now expect findByKey to be a O(1) operation.
References
JLS 8.7 Static initializers
JLS 8.9 Enums
Related questions
Static initalizer in Java
How to Initialise a static Map in Java
Note on values()
The second println statement in the main method is revealing: values() returns a newly allocated array with every invokation! The original O(N) solution could do a little better by only calling values() once and caching the array, but that solution would still be O(N) on average.
Although someone has suggested using Map<Integer, TestEnum> think twice about it.
Your original solution, especially for small enums, may be magnitudes faster than using HashMap.
HashMap will probably be not faster until your enum contains at least 30 to 40 elements.
This is one case of "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".
Here is the most convenient way to find enum value by its field:
public enum TestEnum {
A("EXAMPLE_1", "Qwerty", 1),
B("EXAMPLE_2", "Asdfgh", 2),
C("EXAMPLE_3", "Zxcvbn", 3);
private final String code;
private final String name;
private final Integer typeID;
TestEnum(String code, String name, Integer typeID) {
this.code = code;
this.name = name;
this.key = typeID;
}
public String getCode() {
return code;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public Integer getKey() {
return key;
}
public static TestEnum findValueByTypeId(Integer key) {
return Arrays.stream(TestEnum.values()).filter(v ->
v.getKey().equals(key)).findFirst().orElseThrow(() ->
new Exception(String.format("Unknown TestEnum.key: '%s'", key)));
}
}
You should have a HashMap with the numbers as keys and the enum values as values.
This map can typically be in your repository. Then you can easily replace an int variable from the database with your preferred enum value.
If your keys (int values) are stored in a database, then I will say its bad design to carry those keys around in an enum on your business layer. If that's the case, I will recommend not to store the int value in the enum.
One solution is to add
public final Test[] TESTS = { null, ONE, TWO, THREE };
public static Test getByNumber(int i) {
return TESTS[i];
}
To the enum.
If the internal data is not an integer, you could have a Map which you populate in a static { ... } initializer. This map could later be used in the getByNumber method above.