Develop Reference

Should I implement List interface or extend ArrayList class

I am developing an application where as a background I need to monitor the user activity on particular objects and later when they are visualized they need to be sorted based on the order of which the user used them ( the last used object must be visualized on the first row of a grid for example.)
So if I have an ArrayList where I store the objects which the user is dealing with in order to add the last used object I need to check if it is already in the list and then move it at the first position. If the object is not there I simply add it at the first position of the list.
So instead of doing all these steps I want to make my own list where the logic explained above will be available.
My question is which scenario is better:
Implement the list interface
Extend the ArrayList class and override the ADD method

Create a class that contains an ArrayList and handles any additional functionality.
I.e. prefer composition over inheritance (and in this case, implementing an interface). It's also possible to have that class implement List for relevant cases and just direct the (relevant) operations to the ArrayList inside.
Also note that LinkedHashMap supports insertion order (default) and access order for iteration, if you don't need a List (or if you can suitably replace it with a Map).

So instead of doing all these steps i want to make my own list where
the logic explained above will be available.
I would try to refactor your design parameters (if you can) in order to be able to use the existing Java Collection Framework classes (perhaps a linked collection type). As a part of the Collections Framework, these have been optimized and maintained for years (so efficiency is likely already nearly optimal), and you won't have to worry about maintaining it yourself.
Of the two options you give, it is possible that neither is the easiest or best.
It doesn't sound like you'll be able to extend AbstractList (as a way of implementing List) so you'll have a lot of wheel reinvention to do.
The ArrayList class is not final, but not expressly designed and documented for inheritance. This can result in some code fragility as inheritance breaks encapsulation (discussed in Effective Java, 2nd Ed. by J. Bloch). This solution may not be the best way to go.
Of the options, if you can't refactor your design to allow use of the Collection classes directly, then write a class that encapsulates a List (or other Collection) as an instance field and add instrumentation to it. Favor composition over inheritance. In this way, your solution will be more robust and easier to maintain than a solution based on inheritance.

I think LinkedHashMap already does what you need - it keeps the elements in the order they were inserted or last accessed (this is determined by the parameter accessOrder in one of the constructors).
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHashMap.html
EDIT
I don't have enough reputation to comment, so I'm putting it here: You don't actually need a map, so Venkatesh's LinkedHashSet suggestion is better.
You can do something like this:
<T> void update(Set<T> set, T value) {
set.remove(value);
set.add(value);
}
and then
LinkedHashSet<String> set = new LinkedHashSet<>();
update(set, "a");
update(set, "b");
update(set, "c");
update(set, "a");
Iterator<String> it = new LinkedList<String>(set).descendingIterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
System.out.println(it.next());
}
Output:
a
c
b

You might try using HashMap<Integer, TrackedObject> where TrackedObject is the class of the Object you're keep track of.
When your user uses an object, do
void trackObject(TrackedObject object)
{
int x = hashMap.size();
hashMap.add(Integer.valueOf(x), object);
}
then when you want to read out the tracked objects in order of use:
TrackedObject[] getOrderedArray()
{
TrackedObject[] array = new TrackedObject[hashMap.size()];
for(int i = 0; i < hashMap.size(); i++)
{
array[i] = hashMap.get(Integer.valueOf(i));
}
return array;
}

A LinkedHashSet Also can be helpful in your case. You can keep on adding elements to it, it will keep them in insertion order and also will maintain only unique values.

Enhanced for-loop does not accept Iterator

Excuse me if this has been asked before. My search did not bring up any other similar question. This is something that surprised me in Java.
Apparently, the enhanced for-loop only accepts an array or an instance of java.lang.Iterable. It does not accept a java.util.Iterator as a valid obj reference to iterate over. For example, Eclipse shows an error message for the following code. It says: "Can only iterate over an array or an instance of java.lang.Iterable"
Set<String> mySet = new HashSet<String>();
mySet.add("dummy");
mySet.add("test");
Iterator<String> strings = mySet.iterator();
for (String str : strings) {
// Process str value ...
}
Why would this be so? I want to know why the enhanced for-loop was designed to work this way. Although an Iterator is not a collection, it can be used to return one element at a time from a collection. Note that the only method in the java.lang.Iterable interface is Iterator<T> iterator() which returns an Iterator. Here, I am directly handing it an Iterator. I know that hasNext() and next() can be used but using the enhanced for-loop makes it look cleaner.
One thing I understand now is that I could use the enhanced for-loop directly over mySet. So I don't even need the extra call to get an Iterator. So, that would be the way to code this, and yes - it does make some sense.

The enhanced for loop was part of JSR 201. From that page, you can download the proposed final draft documents, which include a FAQ section directly addressing your question:
Appendix I. Design FAQ
Why can't I use the enhanced for statement with an Iterator (rather
than an Iterable or array)?
Two reasons: (1) The construct would not
provide much in the way on syntactic improvement if you had an
explicit iterator in your code, and (2) Execution of the loop would
have the "side effect" of advancing (and typically exhausting) the
iterator. In other words, the enhanced for statement provides a
simple, elegant, solution for the common case of iterating over a
collection or array, and does not attempt to address more complicated
cases, which are better addressed with the traditional for statement.
Why can't I use the enhanced for statement to:
remove elements as I traverse a collection ("filtering")?
simultaneously iterate over multiple collections or arrays?
modify the current slot in an array or list?
See Item 1 above. The expert group considered these cases, but
opted for a simple, clean extension that dose(sic) one thing well. The
design obeys the "80-20 rule" (it handles 80% of the cases with 20% of
the effort). If a case falls into the other 20%, you can always use an
explicit iterator or index as you've done in the past.
In other words, the committee chose to limit the scope of the proposal, and some features that one could imagine being part of the proposal didn't make the cut.

The enhanced for loop was introduced in Java 5 as a simpler way to
iterate through all the elements of a Collection [or an array].
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~matuszek/General/JavaSyntax/enhanced-for-loops.html
An iterator is not a collection of elements,
it is an object that enables a programmer to traverse a container.
An iterator may be thought of as a type of pointer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterator
So enhanced for loops work by going through all the elements in a structure that contains elements, while an iterator doesn't contain elements, it acts more like a pointer.

In your example, you are creating an iterator but not using it properly. As to answer your question of why the exception is being thrown- it's from the line:
for (String str : strings) {
"strings" is an iterator here, not a collection that you can iterate through. So you have a few options you can iterate through the set by using an enhanced for loop:
for(String myString : mySet){
//do work
}
or you can iterate through the set using an iterator:
Iterator<String> strings = mySet.iterator();
while(strings.hasNext()){
//do work
}
hope you find this helpful.

The error comes because you are trying to iterate over an Iterator, and not a List or Collection. If you want to use the Iterator, i recommend you to use it next() and hasNext() methods:
Set<String> mySet = new HashSet<String>();
mySet.add("dummy");
mySet.add("test");
Iterator<String> strings = mySet.iterator();
while(strings.hasNext()){
String temp = strings.next();
System.out.println(temp);
}

Collection - Iterator.remove() vs Collection.remove()

As per Sun ,
"Iterator.remove is the only safe way to modify a collection during
iteration; the behavior is unspecified if the underlying collection is
modified in any other way while the iteration is in progress."
I have two questions :
What makes this operation "Iterator.remove()" stable than the others ?
Why did they provide a "Collection.remove()" method if it will not be useful in most of the use-cases?

First of all, Collection.remove() is very useful. It is applicable in a lot of use cases, probably more so than Iterator.remove().
However, the latter solves one specific problem: it allows you to modify the collection while iterating over it.
The problem solved by Iterator.remove() is illustrated below:
List<Integer> l = new ArrayList<Integer>(Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3, 4));
for (int el : l) {
if (el < 3) {
l.remove(el);
}
}
This code is invalid since l.remove() is called during iteration over l.
The following is the correct way to write it:
Iterator<Integer> it = l.iterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
int el = it.next();
if (el < 3) {
it.remove();
}
}

If you're iterating over a collection and use:
Collection.remove()
you can get runtime errors (specifically ConcurrentModifcationException) because you're changing the state of the object used previously to construct the explicit series of calls necessary to complete the loop.
If you use:
Iterator.remove()
you tell the runtime that you would like to change the underlying collection AND re-evaluate the explicit series of calls necessary to complete the loop.

As the documentation you quoted clearly states,
Iterator.remove is the only safe way to modify a collection during iteration
(emphasis added)
While using am iterator, you cannot modify the collection, except by calling Iterator.remove().
If you aren't iterating the collection, you would use Collection.remove().

What makes this operation "Iterator.remove()" stable than the others ?
It means that iterator knows you removed the element so it won't produce a ConcurrentModifcationException.
Why did they provide a "Collection.remove()" method if it will not be useful in most of the use-cases ?
Usually you would use Map.remove() or Collection.remove() as this can be much more efficient than iterating over every objects. If you are removing while iterating often I suspect you should be using different collections.

Is just a design choice. It would have been possible to specify a different behavior (i.e. the iterator has to skip values that were removed by Collection.remove()), but that would have made the implementation of the collection framework much more complex. So the choice to leave it unspecified.
It's quite useful. If you know the object you want to remove, why iterate?

From what I understand, the Collection.remove(int index) will also return the removed object. Iterative.remove() will not.

Need of Iterator class in Java?

The question might be pretty vague I know. But the reason I ask this is because the class must have been made with some thought in mind.
This question came into my mind while browsing through a few questions here on SO.
Consider the following code:
class A
{
private int myVar;
A(int varAsArg)
{
myVar = varAsArg;
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
List<A> myList = new LinkedList<A>();
myList.add(new A(1));
myList.add(new A(2));
myList.add(new A(3));
//I can iterate manually like this:
for(A obj : myList)
System.out.println(obj.myVar);
//Or I can use an Iterator as well:
for(Iterator<A> i = myList.iterator(); i.hasNext();)
{
A obj = i.next();
System.out.println(obj.myVar);
}
}
}
So as you can see from the above code, I have a substitute for iterating using a for loop, whereas, I could do the same using the Iterator class' hasNext() and next() method. Similarly there can be an example for the remove() method. And the experienced users had commented on the other answers to use the Iterator class instead of using the for loop to iterate through the List. Why?
What confuses me even more is that the Iterator class has only three methods. And the functionality of those can be achieved with writing a little different code as well.
Some people might argue that the functionality of many classes can be achieved by writing one's own code instead of using the class made for the purpose. Yes,true. But as I said, Iterator class has only three methods. So why go through the hassle of creating an extra class when the same job can be done with a simple block of code which is not way too complicated to understand either.
EDIT:
While I'm at it, since many of the answers say that I can't achieve the remove functionality without using Iterator,I would just like to know if the following is wrong, or will it have some undesirable result.
for(A obj : myList)
{
if(obj.myVar == 1)
myList.remove(obj);
}
Doesn't the above code snippet do the same thing as remove() ?

Iterator came long before the for statement that you show in the evolution of Java. So that's why it's there. Also if you want to remove something, using Iterator.remove() is the only way you can do it (you can't use the for statement for that).

First of all, the for-each construct actually uses the Iterator interface under the covers. It does not, however, expose the underlying Iterator instance to user code, so you can't call methods on it.
This means that there are some things that require explicit use of the Iterator interface, and cannot be achieved by using a for-each loop.
Removing the current element is one such use case.
For other ideas, see the ListIterator interface. It is a bidirectional iterator that supports inserting elements and changing the element under the cursor. None of this can be done with a for-each loop.
for(A obj : myList)
{
if(obj.myVar == 1)
myList.remove(obj);
}
Doesn't the above code snippet do the same thing as remove() ?
No, it does not. All standard containers that I know of will throw ConcurrentModificationException when you try to do this. Even if it were allowed to work, it is ambiguous (what if obj appears in the list twice?) and inefficient (for linked lists, it would require linear instead of constant time).

The foreach construct (for (X x: list)) actually uses Iterator as its implementation internally. You can feed it any Iterable as a source of elements.
And, as others already remarked: Iterator is longer in Java than foreach, and it provides remove().
Also: how else would you implement your own provider class (myList in your example)? You make it Iterable and implement a method that creates an Iterator.

For one thing, Iterator was created way before the foreach loop (shown in your code sample above) was introduced into Java. (The former came in Java2, the latter only in Java5).
Since Java5, indeed the foreach loop is the preferred idiom for the most common scenario (when you are iterating through a single Iterable at a time, in the default order, and do not need to remove or index elements). Note though that the foreach uses an iterator in the background for standard collection classes; in other words it is just syntactic sugar.

Iterator, listIterator both are used to allow different permission to user, like list iterator have 9 methods but iterator have only 3 methods, but have remove functionality which you can't achieve with for loop. Enumeration is another thing which is also used to give only read permissions.

Iterator is an implementation of the classical GoF design pattern. In that way you can achieve clear behaviour separation from the 'technical code' which iterates (the Iterator) and your business code.
Imagine you have to change the 'next' behaviour (say, by getting not the next element but the next EVEN element). If you rely only on for loops you will have to change manually every single for loop, in a way like this
for (int i; i < list.size(); i = i+2)
while if you use an Iterator you can simply override/rewrite the "next()" and "hasNext()" methods and the change will be visible everywhere in your application.

I think answer to your question is abstraction. Iterator is written because to abstract iterating over different set of collections.
Every collection has different methods to iterate over their elements. ArrayList has indexed access. Queues has poll and peek methods. Stack has pop and peek.
Usually you only need to iterate over elements so Iterator comes into play. You do not care about which type of Collection you need to iterate. You only call iterator() method and user Iterator object itself to do this.
If you ask why not put same methods on Collection interface and get rid of extra object creation. You need to know your current position in collection so you can not implement next method in Collection because you can not use it on different locations because every time you call next() method it will increment index (simplifying every collection has different implementation) so you will skip some objects if you use same collection at different places. Also if collection support concurrency than you can not write a multi-thread safe next() method in collection.
It is usually not safe to remove an object from collection iterating by other means than iterator. Iterator.remove() method is safest way to do it. For ArrayList example:
for(int i=0;i

Is there a writable iterator in Java?

In C+ one can use iterators for writing to a sequence. Simplest example would be:
vector<int> v;
for (vector<int>::iterator it = v.begin(); it!=v.end(); ++it) {
*it = 42;
}
I need something more complicated - keep iterator as a class member for a later use.
But I don't know how to get this behavior from Java iterators.
Are there writable iterators in Java at all?
If not then what replaces them?

The ListIterator (which you can obtain by List#listIterator()) has add() and set() methods which allows you to respectively insert and replace the item at the currently iterated index. That's as far the only "writable iterator" as I can think of in Java.
Not sure though if that is the exact replacement of the given C++ code since I don't know C++.

As arrays can be accessed directly and quickly by their index, you don't really need an iterator object. Wouldn't it be enought to save the index of the array in that class member? This would permit to read and write the value of the array.
PS: You could use an ArrayList, which is an automatically growing set of arrays and use the ListIterator as Balus described in order to use the iterator-object-approach.

Looks more like you want a List (or maybe some other collection, like Set) or an array.
Also, you could just make your contents mutable. It looks silly for integers, but continuing your example
for (MutableInteger i : CollectionOfMInts) i.setTo(42);