Develop Reference

Process multi dimensional arrays in Java

What is the best way to take in a multi dimensional array as a method parameter in the form of an object and then reconstruct it as a variable inside that method? The reason I want to pass the array in as an object is because I want my code to be able to use any n dimensional array. I could circumvent this by using method overloading but making hundreds of identical methods just to account for all possible array dimensions seems like a very bad way to do it. However, using an object as a parameter causes a new set of challenges since I have no way to initialize that array since you normally need to explicitly declare an arrays dimensions. Based on some of my research I have figured out a way to determine the dimensions of an array passed in as an object which you can view in the following code snippet.
public static void callTestArray() {
var matrix = new int[][]{{1,2}, {4, 6, 7}};
test(matrix);
}
public static void test(Object obj) {
final int dimensions = dimensionOf(obj);
System.out.println("Dimensions:" + dimensions);
//I can't create a variable from this though since I need to hard code the dimensions of the array
}
/**
* This returns the amount of dimensions an array has.
*/
public static int dimensionOf(Object arr) {
int dimensionCount = 0;
Class<?> c = arr.getClass(); // getting the runtime class of an object
while (c.isArray()) { // check whether the object is an array
c = c.getComponentType(); // returns the class denoting the component type of the array
dimensionCount++;
}
return dimensionCount;
}
I have been looking around for a while now but I cant find an object that allows me to pass in any n dimensional array in that allows me to easily access all of an arrays typical information? Was this not included in Java or am I just missing it? That being said since 255 is the max amount of dimensions an array can have I could make my own utils class to handle this but it would require a ton of redundancies and effort to handle all cases. I just want to make sure it has not already been made before I waste hours making something like that. Also if anyone has a better way of doing it with any internal java libraries please let me know!

Instead of passing around arrays we more often than not use collections like ArrayList, this allows us some abstraction and allows us to add some common methods to it. Note that ArrayList doesn't extend arrays, it simply implements a list interface.
I recommend the same thing for you, instead of passing around an array, consider encapsulating the array in a class and pass that class around. Use the class to do certain simplifications, for instance you might have a method allowing it to apply a function to each element of the matrix or one to resize the matrix.
You might track your matrix's dimensions in different variables allowing you to resize it without re-allocating the array (like an ArrayList does)
Another advantage of the encapsulation, if you wish to do something different like make a sparse matrix out of it, you could re-implement the underlying code without changing the ways it's used (Like the way ArrayList and LinkedList have the same interface but do things different ways for different use cases)
Your other conditions seem to work for this Matrix object as well as it would arrays, for instance you would pass dimensions into the constructor to create it initially (Although, as I said, you could easily expand it later, especially if you used an ArrayList of ArrayLists for your underlying implementation, if you needed that)
I think the reason it's not included in Java is that it is not very commonly used and quite easy to implement, but if you really don't want to do it yourself, apache has a Matrix implementaiton that looks like it will fit.
We use time series data like hourly tempatures a lot (Often down to 10 second resolution for a day) and so we built our own class that essentially represents a line on a graph with the y axis of "Date", like a linked list but each value is timestamped. This structure is AMAZINGLY useful for us and I often wonder why it's not in Java, but I think I just answered my own question, not used enough.

This is a job for varargs:
public static void main(String[] args) {
var matrix = new int[][]{{1,2}, {4, 6, 7}};
System.out.println("Length is: " + getSize(matrix));
}
public static int getSize(int[]... multiArray) {
return multiArray.length;
}
which prints out:
Length is: 2
Also, unless you have to use an array to hold your int arrays, I would use an ArrayList<int[]> instead. That way you can easily add to your list like:
ArrayList<int[]> multiArray = new ArrayList<>();
multiArray.add(new int[]{1,2,3});
multiArray.add(new int[]{4,5,6});
and then you can get its size by simply calling:
multiArray.size()

Here's my attempt. You use Object as the parameter and then check for the array dimension in the body of the method. In this example, I only limit it to 3D array but you can go up to any dimension.
public class Main{
static void process(Object o){
if (o instanceof int[]){
int[] a = (int[]) o;
System.out.println("1D. length is " + a.length);
} else if (o instanceof int[][]){
int[][] a = (int[][]) o;
System.out.println("2D. row=" + a.length + ", col=" + a[0].length);
} else if (o instanceof int[][][]){
int[][][] a = (int[][][]) o;
System.out.println("3D. row=" + a.length + ", col=" + a[0].length + ", depth=" + a[0][0].length);
} else {
System.out.println("Unsupported array dimension.");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] a = {1,2,3};
int[][] b = {{1,2,3},{1,2,3}};
int[][][] c = {
{ {1,2,3}, {1,2,3} },
{ {1,2,3}, {1,2,3} }
};
process(a);
process(b);
process(c);
}
}
Output:
1D. length is 3
2D. row=2, col=3
3D. row=2, col=2, depth=3

How do I make a copy of an Array, which I can return in a public method?

Basically I got told that I shouldn't have public methods returning Arrays for "future" security purposes. Instead they should be private, and if I wanna return an Array it would have to be some kind of copy in another method.
This is how it looks now..
public Object[] ownedObject() {
return objectArr;
}
If I make this private the class that needs it doesn't recognize the method above.
Thing is I need to use the contents in that Array in said, other class, and the total project, as I have it right now with 5 different classes, works (with the returning Array-methods set to Public and not private).

As you are concerned with security aspect of this problem you might want to distinguish between shallow copy and deep copy of the array. If your array contains mutable objects you probably need a deep copy of every single element in the array to ensure that state is not leaking from your object.
Assuming that you array is of type MyType with a copy constructor:
public MyType[] ownedObject() {
MyType[] copyArr = new MyType[objectArr.lenght];
for (int i = 0; i < objectArr.lenght; i++) {
copyArr[i] = new MyType(objectArr[i]);
}
return copyArr;
}
There are also other ways to deep copy an object.

How to prevent changing the value of array or object

I am a beginner in Java. When developing a program, I created an object with a constructor with variables as arguments. But when I change the value of the variable after creating the object, my object has the second value instead of the first one. I don't want my object to change the value. What do I do?
public class Person {
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
this.arrayTest = arrayTest;
}
public int[] getArray() {
return this.arrayTest;
}
public boolean canHaveAsArray(int[] arrayTest) {
return true;
}
private int[] arrayTest = new int[2];
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] array = new int[] {5, 10};
Person obj1 = new Person(array);
array[0] = 20;
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(obj1.getArray()));
}
}
My output should be [5, 10], but instead, I am getting [20,10]. I need to get [5,10] even when I change an element of the array as shown above. What should I do?

If you pass the original array to the constructor of Person, you are passing the reference to the original array. So any change in arrayTest inside Person instance will reflect in original array(int[] array) and vice-versa.
If you don't want to change the value of elements of original array in Person instance then you have two options:
You can modify the code in Person constructor to create a copy of original array using java.util.Arrays.copyOf method and then use that copy:
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
this.arrayTest = java.util.Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);
}
Don't pass the original array to constructor, instead just send a copy of original array:
Person obj1 = new Person(java.util.Arrays.copyOf(array, array.length));
However, I would prefer first approach.
If you would like to prevent the value of variable which is of primitive type, you can do so using final keyword. Eg:
private final int test = 1;
To prevent changing the value inside an object you can mark the fields as final. A final keyword in declaration of object instance means the variable can't be reassigned and doesn't guarantee that the object state won't change if the reference to that object is shared. To prevent changing the state of a particular object, you should mark it's field as final.

There is no such thing as immutable (unchangeable) array in Java. The Java language does not support this. As JLS 4.12.4 states:
If a final variable holds a reference to an object, then the state of the object may be changed by operations on the object, but the variable will always refer to the same object. This applies also to arrays, because arrays are objects; if a final variable holds a reference to an array, then the components of the array may be changed by operations on the array, but the variable will always refer to the same array.
The JVM spec doesn't support an immutable array type either. You can't solve this at the language level. The only way to avoid changes to an array is to not share the reference to the array with other code that might change it.
In your example, you have what is known as a leaky abstraction. You are passing an array to your Person class, and the caller is keeping a reference to that array so that it can change it. To solve this, you can:
copy the array, and pass a reference to the copy, or
have the constructor (or a setter for the array attribute) make the copy.
(See answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/55428214/139985 for example code.)
The second alternative is preferable from an OO perspective. The Person class should be responsible for preserving its own internal state from interference ... if that is your design requirement. It should not rely on the caller to do this. (Even if the caller is technically part of the same class as is the case here.)

There is no unmodifiable array, but you can make an unmodifiable list:
List<Integer> list = List.of(5, 10);
You will have to change your code to use lists instead of arrays, but this is generally preferable anyway.
If you already have an array of a non-primitive type, you can wrap it in an unmodifiable list, like so:
List<Integer> list = Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(array));
However, while you can't change the list directly, changing the array will change the list. Moreover, this won't work on int[], but only on subclasses of Object[].

In Java, objects/arrays are manipulated through reference variables#
When a function is invoked with arrays as their arguments, only a reference to the array is passed. Therefore, when you mutate array array, the arrayTest field also get mutated as they are referring to the same address
To override this behavior, you can create a copy of the array in your constructor using Object.clone() method like:
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone();
}
# Source: Wikipedia

Instead of passing a copy of the array to the object, as others have suggested, I would recommend that the Person object's constructor should create a copy. Which means instead of,
this.arrayTest = arrayTest;
It should be
this.arrayTest = Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);
This would allow the object to be defensive against malicious code trying to modify arrays after construction and validation by constructor. In fact most IDEs have analysis tools which will give you a warning against saving array reference.

As others have already pointed out: The array is passed as a reference to the Person. So changes that are later done to the array will be visible to the Person object. But that's only one half of the problem: You are not only passing a reference to the array to the constructor of the Person, you are also returning a reference from the getArray method.
Generally speaking, and as StephenC already pointed out in his answer: One important aspect of Object-Oriented design is to properly manage the state space of objects. It should not be possible for users of a class to bring an object into any form of "inconsistent state".
And this is difficult with plain primitive arrays. Consider the following pseudocode, referring to the class that you posted:
int originalArray[] = new int[2];
originalArray[0] = 12;
originalArray[1] = 34;
Person person = new Person(originalArray);
int arrayFromPerson[] = person.getArray();
originalArray[0] = -666; // Modify the original array
System.out.println(arrayFromPerson[0]) // Prints -666 - this is unexpected!
arrayFromPerson[1] = 12345678; // Modify the array from the person
System.out.println(originalArray[1]) // Prints 12345678 - this is unexpected!
Nobody knows who has a reference to the array, and nobody can verify or track that the contents of the array is not changed in any way. How critical this is becomes more obvious when you anticipate that the Person object will be used at different places, possibly even by multiple threads.
Plain primitive arrays in Java do have their justification. But when they appear in the interface of a class (that is, in its public methods), they should be view with scrutiny.
In order to be absolutely sure that nobody can interfere with the array that is stored in the Person object, you'd have to create defensive copies everywhere:
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array
}
public int[] getArray() {
return this.arrayTest.clone(); // Return a clone of the array
}
But this may be cumbersome. A more object-oriented solution could be to expose a "read-only view" on the state that is represented with the array. For example:
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array
}
public int getArrayLength() {
return this.arrayTest.length;
}
public int getArrayElement(int index) {
return this.arrayTest[index];
}
(Of course, in practice, you'd name the methods accordingly, depending on what the array actually represents. For example, if it's the ages of the children of the person, you'd call the methods getNumChildren() and getAgeOfChild(int i) or so...)
Another option how this can be solved is to expose an (unmodifiable) List view on the array. This can, for example, be done with the asUnmodifiableList method that is shown in this answer.

as you are beginner in java you write following code in constructor but it is better to use clone method as marco13 and rv 7 already explained
and as sourabh bhat explained we can also use Arrays class copyof
the idea behind all of above logic is simple don't pass referance of current object but create clone of object and pass that clone or just copy each content of the object
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
for (int i = 0; i <this.arrayTest.length; i++) {
this.arrayTest[i]=arrayTest[i];
}
}

Here is what happens in memory:
Program: Stack memory: Heap memory:
int[] array = new int[] {5, 10}; array -> 0x77a89 0x77a89 {5, 10}
Person obj1 = new Person(array); obj1.arrayTest -> 0x77a89 No change
array[0] = 20; 0x77a89 {20, 10}
As you can see stack memory holds only the address of the object which gets created in the heap memory. So when you change the arrays value it automatically changes in the Person obj1 object as well.
To fix this you need to create a new Object in memory so that the actual Objects value is copied. To do this we can:
[1] Use the clone property of array.
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone();
}
[2] Or we can create our own clone.
public Person(int[] arrayTest){
if (arrayTest == null){
this.arrayTest = null;
} else {
int[] copyArray = new int[arrayTest.length];
for(int i=0; i<arrayTest.length; i++) {
copyArray[i] = arrayTest[i]
}
this.arrayTest = copyArray;
}
}
Either way a new Object is created in memory and this prevents the object from being shared.

Edit 5/5/19: Source code added
As most answers point out, there is no immutable array of primitives in Java. So you have to do some tricks.
Pure Java: Make defensive copies. Most answers show how to store a copy of the array that is received as a parameter in the constructor. But only one answer mentions that you also have to return a copy of the internal array with getArray().
public class Person {
final private int[] arrayTest;
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
this.arrayTest = java.util.Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);
}
public int[] getArray() {
return java.util.Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);;
}
}
Other internal representation: Store the array as a (mutable) ArrayList, which is based on an array and should have best performance. You have to convert from array to List in the constructor and from List to array in getArray(). There is no need to use Collections.unmodifiableList() (or Guavas ImmutableList<>) as long as you write no method that could modify the List because no one will have access to the List.
public class Person {
final private List<Integer> arrayTest;
public Person(int[] arrayTest) {
this.arrayTest = new ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList(arrayTest));
}
public int[] getArray() {
return this.arrayTest.stream().mapToInt(Integer::valueOf).toArray;
}
}
Let other people do the job. Google AutoValue auto-generates immutable classes. And provides equals(), hashCode() and toString(). Easy to use. My favorite solution.
import com.google.auto.value.AutoValue;
#AutoValue
public abstract class Person {
public static create(int[] arrayTest) {
return new AutoValue_Person(int[] arrayTest);
}
public abstract int[] getArray() {}
}

Is a final array of final strings still mutable?

Suppose I have an array
public static final String[] fooArray ={ Foo.a, Foo.b, Foo.c };
where Foo.a b and c are static final Strings.
Could I still do something like fooArray[0] = "taco"; and end up with { taco, Foo.b, Foo.c } as the contents of fooArray?
If so, would making the array private, and having a getter that makes a copy of the array using Arrays.copyOf solve this issue?

The final applies to the array reference, not its entries. Different strings can still be written to its entries.
If so, would making the array private, and having a getter that makes a copy of the array using Arrays.copyOf solve this issue?
Yes, defensive copies are a fairly standard way to handle this.
Alternately, given what you've outlined, you don't need to have the array at all, just a getter that looks like this:
public String[] getFooArray() {
return new String[] { Foo.a, Foo.b, Foo.c };
}
Or as jtahlborn commented, use an unmodifiable List<String>:
public static final List<String> fooArray;
static {
List<String> a = new ArrayList<>();
Collections.addAll(a, Foo.a, Foo.b, Foo.c);
fooArray = Collections.unmodifiableList(a);
}
// (There's probably some really nifty Java8 way to do that as a one-liner...

Yes.
A final array means you can't reassign the array.
So you couldn't do: fooArray = new String[]{...};.
But you can however change what is inside the array. This is the effect of saying: "You can't change the box, but you can change the apples inside the box to be oranges." The box stays the same, and is final, but you've effectively changed the contents.
That being said, if you encapsulate the class, then you can just clone the array when it is needed.
This is currently employed by many classes, such as String#toCharArray and Enum#values, where changing the array's contents comprises the integrity of the finalized object(s).

The final-modifier will only prevent changing the fooArray-reference, not the contents of the array itself. Making it private and having a getter returning a copy would hide the original array, and any changes made to the returned array would only affect the copy. However, it would still be possible to modify the original via reflection, but if your intent is to only prevent accidental modification of the original array, that would work.

Rest have answered about the final well. Just a suggestion on the other part - rather than implementing a getter which does a copy of entire array, if your scenario allows, its better to have a getArrayElement(int position) where you just return an array element rather than the whole array - copying an array is expensive.

You could make a getter that returns a mutable copy of an immutable value.
If you used array copy the values inside the copy will still be final.
public class HelloWorld{
public static void main(String []args){
System.out.println("Hello World");
final int b = 5;
int c = b; // Because of c being mutable we can now change this copy
c = 7;
System.out.println(c);
}
}
... Some psudo code -> for copying an iterable into a mutable form.
public collection<int>(final collection<final int> finalCollection )
collection nonFinalCollection = new collention();
for(k : finalCollention){collection.add((int) k)}
return(collection)

Most convenient way to initialize an array of objects

Is there a more convenient way to initialize an array of objects than doing this?
SomeClass[] someArray = new SomeClass[100];
//...
for (int i = 0; i < someArray.length; i++) {
someArray[i] = new SomeClass();
}
// ...

Use Arrays.fill()
String[] stringArray = new String[100];
Arrays.fill(stringArray, "");
It's not any faster since it iterates over the array just like you did, but it is more convenient.
Arrays.fill() code
public static void fill(Object[] a, int fromIndex, int toIndex, Object val) {
rangeCheck(a.length, fromIndex, toIndex);
for (int i=fromIndex; i<toIndex; i++)
a[i] = val;
}

Because of the immutability of String in Java, your question is a bit strange. The primary thrust suggests you are looking for this:
String[] arr = new String[100];
Arrays.fill(arr, new String());//Array utility
However, this does not actually net you anything, because you will have to effectively create a new String object whenever you replace one of those array items with a different String. This means that the act of creating a new String() is redundant and therefore less efficient.
This begs the question: why are you doing this? Is it to ensure that there is a valid object being returned? Or that the object in the array is actually a String? If the latter, make use of generics:
List<String> arr = new ArrayList<String>();
This solves the same problem and nets you benefits of object-orientation. It is generally recommended you stay away from primitive arrays if you can: object-based arrays are far more usable, leading to cleaner code and often more efficient programs.
If you are using a mutable type, and the point of pre-filling is to ensure that an object exists when it's retrieved from the array, the best way to handle this is to actually use exceptions on the receiving end, for two reasons: the first being that you save memory by not allocating memory before you actually need it (and all the attendant savings that go along with that) and the second being that there is little stopping an array from having an element set to null, so you have to check anyway:
try {
SomeObject myObj = arr.get(idx);
myObj.doSomethingFun();//will fail if this is null!
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
//do something intelligent like return a fail case.
}
Note that while exceptions carry overhead if they catch an actual error, they have no overhead until that point. For this reason you don't want to use them for flow-of-control, but you do want to use them (more than you probably do) to catch edge cases that don't make sense.

This isn't quicker, but its less code:
String[] stringArray = new String[100];
Arrays.fill(stringArray, "");

So, you told you want to create array of distinct objects. Then there must be a default constructor or a factory that you pass in. I'll show code for first case - when you can call empty constructor with Class<...>.newInstance():
import java.lang.reflect.Array;
// ... in a class:
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static <T> T[] initializedArray(int size, Class<T> classHint) throws java.lang.Exception {
T[] result = (T[]) Array.newInstance(classHint, size);
for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
result[i] = classHint.newInstance();
}
return result;
}
Example usage here: http://ideone.com/pbTFq9

you can declare like
String[] array;
...
array = new String[]{object1, object2};