If anyone familiar with Rebecca Wirfs-Brock, she has a piece of Java code found in her book titled, Object Design: Roles, Responsibilities, and Collaborations.
Here is the quote >Applying Double Dispatch to a Specific Problem
To implement the game Rock, Paper, Scissors we need to write code that determines whether
one object “beats” another. The game has nine possible outcomes based on the three kinds of
objects. The number of interactions is the cross product of the kinds of objects. Case or switch statements are often governed by the type of data that is being operated on. The
object-oriented language equivalent is to base its actions on the class of some other object. In Java,
it looks like this
Here is the piece of Java code on page 16 '
import java.util.*;
import java.lang.*;
public class Rock
{
public static void main(String args[])
{
}
public static boolean beats(GameObject object)
{
if (object.getClass.getName().equals("Rock"))
{
result = false;
}
else if (object.getClass.getName().equals("Paper"))
{
result = false;
}
else if(object.getClass.getName().equals("Scissors"))
{
result = true;
}
return result;
}
}'
===>This is not a very good solution. First, the receiver needs to know too much about the argument.
Second, there is one of these nested conditional statements in each of the three classes. If new
kinds of objects could be added to the game, each of the three classes would have to be modified.
Can anyone share with me how to get this "less than optimal" piece of code to work in order to see it 'working'. She proceeds to demonstrate a better way, but I will spare you.
Thanks
I would start by defining classes RPSSystem and RPSObject. The code to construct the classic RPS-game would look like this:
RPSObject rock = new RPSObject("Rock");
RPSObject paper = new RPSObject("Paper");
RPSObject scissors = new RPSObject("Scissors");
RPSSystem classicRPS = new RPSSystem(rock, paper, scissors);
// new RPSSystem(Collection<RPSObject> objects) possible too
classicRPS.defineBeatsRule(rock, scissors);
classicRPS.defineBeatsRule(paper, rock);
classicRPS.defineBeatsRule(scissors, paper);
RPSSystem would have a method
int fight(RPSObject a, RPSObject b)
which would return -1 when a wins, 1 when b wins and 0 when the result is not defined. Internally RPSObjects could be stored in a list and beating rules could be stored in a matrix (columns and rows would match the indices of the objects in the list). If multiple instances of similar RPSObject should be allowed, the equals-method of RPSObject should be written accordingly.
Having a separate class for each object in the system seems a bit too complicated.
EDIT:
Complete classes:
package rpsgame;
public final class RPSObject {
private final String name;
public RPSObject(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public String toString() {
return getName();
}
}
package rpsgame;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.List;
public final class RPSSystem {
private final List<RPSObject> objects;
private final int[][] beatsRules;
public static final int WINS = 1;
public static final int TIE = 0;
public static final int LOSES = -1;
public RPSSystem(RPSObject... objects) {
this.objects = Arrays.asList(objects.clone());
this.beatsRules = new int[objects.length][objects.length];
}
void defineBeatsRule(RPSObject winner, RPSObject loser) {
if (winner.equals(loser)) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
int winnerIndex = getObjectIndex(winner);
int loserIndex = getObjectIndex(loser);
beatsRules[winnerIndex][loserIndex] = WINS;
beatsRules[loserIndex][winnerIndex] = LOSES;
}
public int fight(RPSObject a, RPSObject b) {
int aIndex = getObjectIndex(a);
int bIndex = getObjectIndex(b);
return beatsRules[aIndex][bIndex];
}
public List<RPSObject> getObjects() {
return Collections.unmodifiableList(objects);
}
private int getObjectIndex(RPSObject o) {
int index = objects.indexOf(o);
if (index < 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
return index;
}
// test
public static void main(String[] args) {
RPSSystem classicRPS = buildClassicRPS();
List<RPSObject> objects = classicRPS.getObjects();
for (RPSObject a: objects) {
for (RPSObject b: objects) {
int result = classicRPS.fight(a, b);
switch (result) {
case RPSSystem.WINS:
System.out.println(a + " beats " + b);
break;
case RPSSystem.TIE:
System.out.println(a + " vs " + b + " is tied");
break;
case RPSSystem.LOSES:
System.out.println(a + " loses against " + b);
break;
}
}
}
}
private static RPSSystem buildClassicRPS() {
RPSObject rock = new RPSObject("Rock");
RPSObject paper = new RPSObject("Paper");
RPSObject scissors = new RPSObject("Scissors");
RPSSystem classicRPS = new RPSSystem(rock, paper, scissors);
classicRPS.defineBeatsRule(rock, scissors);
classicRPS.defineBeatsRule(paper, rock);
classicRPS.defineBeatsRule(scissors, paper);
return classicRPS;
}
}
Just add RPSSystem.EVERYONE_DIES and defineEveryoneDiesRule(...) and you're ready for
rps.add(atombomb);
rps.defineBeatsRule(atombomb, scissors);
rps.defineBeatsRule(atombomb, rock);
rps.defineBeatsRule(atombomb, paper);
rps.defineEveryoneDiesRule(atombomb, atombomb);
Use an enum for dealing with it (RPSObj) that has a beats(RPSObj o) method, with each enum element having a Set passed in, stored as beatset. Then, the beats(RPSObj o) method can do return beatset.contains(o);. Simples :)
Edit: You can actually use an EnumSet as the Set implementation, which should be even more efficient than other set implementations :)
You might want to take a look at this thread:
Using inheritance and polymorphism to solve a common game problem
It seems to be around the same subject.
I think personally I would simply have a utility-like class that would contain the 'beats' method. The 'beats' method would take two GameObject objects as parameters.
That way I could just pass in the two objects (rock, paper or scissors) and perform the necessary logic. Now if you add a new object, you don't change anything other than the 'beats' method within the utility class keeping things encapsulated from your main.
ryan's link is nice, it contains several other ideas for handling this situation as well.
So here's how I fixed it. I first made a new interface called GameObject since they refer to it!
public interface GameObject
{
public boolean beats(GameObject g);
}
The type didn't exist so referring to it wasn't going to work so great.
Here's my new code for Rock with comments on changes:
import java.util.*;
import java.lang.*;
public class Rock implements GameObject //Need to be an instance of GameObject somehow!
{
public static void main(String args[])
{
}
public boolean beats(GameObject object) //This isn't static anymore
{
boolean result = false; //Need to declare and initialize result
if (((Object)object).getClass().getName().equals("Rock")) //getClass should have ()
{
result = false;
}
else if (object.getClass().getName().equals("Paper")) //getClass should have ()
{
result = false;
}
else if(object.getClass().getName().equals("Scissors")) //getClass should have ()
{
result = true;
}
return result;
}
}
EDIT: You seemed to be asking for how to fix the code and not the better way to do it. I believe this should be good to go for you now.
Related
I made these 2 objects:
Fighter Lucas = new Fighter(Statistics.punchStrength,
Statistics.movementSpeed, Statistics.reflex);
Opponent Simon = new Opponent(Statistics.punchStrength2,
Statistics.movementSpeed2, Statistics.reflex2);
I want to make them "fight" by comparing their random variables, but I have no idea how to do this.
Make one class fighter and then 2 instances Fighter and Opponent ... I don't understand why you make 2 classes which are doing same job.
You Fighter class should have a method attack(Opponent)
class Figher{
// ..
public void attack(Opponent opponent){
int opponentMaxDamage = calculateHitpointsBy(opponent);
int damageByOpponent = opponent.defend(this, opponentMaxDamage);
this.lifePoints-=damageByOpponent;
}
public boolean isAlive(){
return 0< this.lifePoints;
}
// ..
}
and your Opponent class should have a method defend(Fighter)
class Opponent{
// ..
public void defend(Figher fighter, int maxAttackDamage){
int myDamage = reduceDamage(fighter,int maxAttackDamage);
int attackerDamage = calculateAttackerDamage(fighter);
this.lifePoints-=myDamage ;
}
public boolean isAlive(){
return 0< this.lifePoints;
}
// ..
}
This gives you the possibility to add more complex calculations for the life points later. Eg.: the actual damage an attacker can do to the opponent may depend on the equipment she wears. The same may be true for the damage the opponent receives.
The method isAlive() could be extracted to a common base class...
You use it this way:
Fighter Lucas = new Fighter(Statistics.punchStrength, Statistics.movementSpeed, Statistics.reflex);
Opponent Simon = new Opponent(Statistics.punchStrength2, Statistics.movementSpeed2, Statistics.reflex2);
// fight
while(Lucas.isAlive()&&Simon.isAlive())
Lucas.attack(Simon);
// report winner
if(Lucas.isAlive())
System.out.println("winner is Lucas");
if(Simon.isAlive())
System.out.println("winner is Simon");
Use getter and setter methods in both of the classes i.e Fighter and Opponent
Then
Your Fighter class looks like this
class Fighter{
private int punchStrength, movementSpeed, reflex;
public int getPunchStrength() {
return punchStrength;
}
public void setPunchStrength(int punchStrength) {
this.punchStrength = punchStrength;
}
public int getMovementSpeed() {
return movementSpeed;
}
public void setMovementSpeed(int movementSpeed) {
this.movementSpeed = movementSpeed;
}
public int getReflex() {
return reflex;
}
public void setReflex(int reflex) {
this.reflex = reflex;
}
public Fighter(int punchStrength, int movementSpeed, int reflex) {
this.punchStrength = punchStrength;
this.movementSpeed = movementSpeed;
this.reflex = reflex;
}
}
Your Opponent class look like this
class Opponent{
private int punchStrength, movementSpeed, reflex;
public int getPunchStrength() {
return punchStrength;
}
public void setPunchStrength(int punchStrength) {
this.punchStrength = punchStrength;
}
public int getMovementSpeed() {
return movementSpeed;
}
public void setMovementSpeed(int movementSpeed) {
this.movementSpeed = movementSpeed;
}
public int getReflex() {
return reflex;
}
public void setReflex(int reflex) {
this.reflex = reflex;
}
public Opponent(int punchStrength, int movementSpeed, int reflex) {
this.punchStrength = punchStrength;
this.movementSpeed = movementSpeed;
this.reflex = reflex;
}
}
Now in your main class :
Fighter Lucas = new Fighter (Statistics.punchStrength,
Statistics.movementSpeed, Statistics.reflex);
Opponent Simon = new Opponent (Statistics.punchStrength2,
Statistics.movementSpeed2, Statistics.reflex2);
int avgFighter = ((Lucas.getpunchStrength())+(Lucas.getmovementSpeed())+(Lucas.getreflex()))/3;
int avgOpponent = ((Opponent .getpunchStrength())+(Opponent .getmovementSpeed())+(Opponent .getreflex()))/3;
if(avgFighter > avgOpponent )
System.out.println("Fighter wins");
else if(avgFighter == avgOpponent)
System.out.println("Draw");
else
System.out.println("Fighter looses");
Short version
Make one class - Fighter - which has fight(Fighter otherFighter) method. In that method, resolve the fight, so that the fight() logic and Fighter implementation does not leak outside the class. For an example, see below.
Long version
What I would do is abandon idea of having Opponent and Fighter classes if they're doing the same thing and have the same fields. Instead, why not have one Fighter class? The way I understand, the only difference between your objects is that they have different values - and that does not necessarily mean that you need to belong to different classes. Hence, unless Fighter can fight some other entities that have vastly different properties, one class should be enough. Besides, you can always extend the class if you need more fields or/and methods that behave slightly differently.
Now, determining who would win the fight is a rather interesting problem because you can do it in many ways, some more maintainable than others. On the one hand, you could calculate the outcome outside the classes. However, I do not think that this is the best approach. First of all, this means you need to know quite a lot about the Fighter, and how the fights work. Imagine if someone else worked with your code and wanted to resolve a fight. Would he/she be able to do it easily, or would he/she have to consult with you?
In my opinion, the logic should not leak to the outside, as this will make your code harder to maintain in the long run. E.g., what if attributes change? What if you want to resolve fights in multiple places of your code? Are you going to create a class whose sole purpose is to resolve a fight? Seems a bit strange. Or, worse yet, are you going to copy-paste the code? If so, what will you do if you need to change the logic of an outcome? Are you sure you can adjust all code you've copy-pasted? These are the questions you should be actively thinking about.
What I immediately think when I see a class named Fighter is that the entity represented, well, fights. Wouldn't it be nice if it could resolve the fights itself? Wouldn't it be logical place to put the code? Hence, my solution would be something like this:
public class Fighter {
private int speed;
private int reflex;
private int strength;
public Fighter(int speed, int reflex, int strength) {
this.speed = speed;
this.reflex = reflex;
this.strength = strength;
}
public String fight(Fighter otherFighter) {
int thisSum = speed + reflex + strength;
int thatSum = otherFighter.speed + otherFighter.reflex + otherFighter.strength;
int outcome = thisSum - thatSum;
if (outcome == 0) {
return "Draw";
} else if (outcome > 0) {
return "First fighter won";
} else {
return "Second fighter won";
}
}
}
Notice the fight() method. You pass another Fighter instance into it and without any effort the fight is resolved. The only caveat is that you need a way to figure out to determine which attributes are 'higher' and calculate the overall outcome. There are many ways to do it, of course. I used ints for clarity and ease of use. But you could use anything you like, or implement any logic you want. In any case, now you can resolve the fight with one method call. Hence, the whole code outside the class looks something like this:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Fighter fighter = new Fighter(1, 2, 3);
Fighter opponent = new Fighter(4, 2, 1);
System.out.println(fighter.fight(opponent));
}
}
Naturally, fight() could be extended to contain much more complex logic. Or it could be changed to accept some common base class of opponents, monsters, or fighters, which would allow you not only to fight Fighter's, but also other entities, too. Nevertheless, one thing I would try to achieve is to have as little logic about the fight as possible outside the Fighter class, so as to not have to change code in multiple places if I change my mind about how the fights work.
By the way, I have not used getters and setters, but it would probably be a good idea if getting an attribute involves some kind of logic.
I decided to create an account in order to ask a question I cant seem to figure out myself, or by some googling, hopefully I didn't just overlook it.
Essentially I am trying to make a text adventure game in Java, and am having a little trouble seeing how I should relate everything in the idea of objects. I have been successful in using XML stax and sending a file to the program, and using attributes and what not, to make it where the user can enter an integer associated with an option, and see if option requires an "item" or gives them an Item. I however did not take an OOP to this.
I want my new program to people able to take a string of user input in, instead of only an integer, and checking it against an array list if it exists. This is closer to the classic MUDs most may be familiar with.
I want to design it in a modular way, so I can slowly add on ideas, and more complexity to go along, so I don't want a "well it works so lets leave it alone" approach either.
Currently I simply want something close to this:
A Room object, which would have: an ID, Description, and interact-able
a Choice object (this one im not sure on) I thought about making an object to hold each rooms possible choices, both for exit, and for interact-ables
if so, the room object may need a Choice Object.
I've thought it over, tried some code, thought it over again, and every time, I keep ending up hard coding more than I feel I should, and making tons more variables than I feel are necessary, which makes me feel like i'm missing something crucial in my thinking.
I also want these rooms to be created through an inputted file, not generated in the code (so essentially the code is a story reader/crafter for any type, not one)
I have also been attempting this too long, and my solutions are becoming worse, but below was my most recent attempt at a rough Idea:
a GameManager class that takes the userInput and checks it some, before passing it along. I havent passed any data because im not sure of the approach. also im not used to regex, so some of that may also be wrong, if it is, maybe point it out, but that is not my focus
import java.util.Scanner;
public class GameManager {
private static final String EXIT_PHRASE = "exit";
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner userInput = new Scanner(System.in);
String userStringVal = "";
while(!userStringVal.equals(EXIT_PHRASE)){
userStringVal= userInput.nextLine();
if(checkKeywords(userStringVal)){
System.out.println("matches keyword");
}
else System.out.println("didnt match a keyword");
}
userInput.close();
}
public static boolean checkKeywords(String string){
boolean isKeyword = false;
string.toLowerCase();
if(string.matches("travel.*") || string.matches("search.*")){
System.out.println("passed first check");
String substring = string.substring(6);
if(matchDirection(substring)){
isKeyword = true;
}
}
return isKeyword;
}
public static boolean matchDirection(String string){
boolean hasDirection = false;
if(string.matches(".*\\bnorth|south|east|west|northeast|northwest|southeast| southwest|up|down")){
hasDirection = true;
}
return hasDirection;
}
}
The Room object I thought about as such:
import javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamException;
import javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamReader;
public class Room {
private String roomDescription = "";
private int roomID=0;
private int northExit=0;
private int southExit=0;
private int eastExit=0;
private int westExit=0;
private int northeastExit=0;
private int northwestExit=0;
private int southeastExit=0;
private int southwestExit=0;
private int upExit=0;
private int downExit=0;
private String[] interactables = new String[10];
private Options options = new Options();
public Room(XMLStreamReader reader) throws XMLStreamException{
setAttValues(reader);
setRoomDescription(reader);
setUpOptions();
}
public void setinteractables(XMLStreamReader reader){
int count = reader.getAttributeCount();
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++){
interactables[i] = reader.getAttributeValue(i);
}
}
public void setAttValues(XMLStreamReader reader){
int count = reader.getAttributeCount();
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++){
String att = reader.getAttributeLocalName(i);
if(att !=""){
switch(att){
case "North": northExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "South": southExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "East": eastExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "West": westExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "NorthEast": northeastExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "NorthWest": northwestExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "SouthEast": southeastExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "SouthWest": southwestExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "Up": upExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "Down": downExit=Integer.parseInt(att);
case "ID": roomID=Integer.parseInt(att);
}
}
}
}
public void setRoomDescription(XMLStreamReader reader) throws XMLStreamException{
roomDescription = reader.getElementText();
}
public void setUpOptions(){
options.setCardinalPointers(northExit, southExit, eastExit, westExit);
options.setIntercardinalPointers(northeastExit, northwestExit, southeastExit, southwestExit);
options.setElevationPointers(upExit, downExit);
}
}
what can I do to make sure I dont have to state so many directions with so many variables?
here is a quick and rough idea of an Option class that I thought about, but i didn't finish deciding I am already too far in the wrong direction
public class Options {
private int northPointer = 0;
private int southPointer= 0;
private int eastPointer = 0;
private int westPointer = 0;
private int northeastPointer= 0;
private int northwestPointer = 0;
private int southeastPointer = 0;
private int southwestPointer = 0;
private int upPointer = 0;
private int downPointer = 0;
private String northInteractable = "";
private String southInteractable = "";
private String eastInteractable = "";
private String westInteractable = "";
private String northeastInteractable ="";
private String northwestInteractable = "";
private String southeastInteractable = "";
private String southwestInteractable = "";
private String upInteractable = "";
private String downInteractable = "";
public Options(){
}
public void setCardinalPointers(int north, int south, int east, int west){
northPointer = north;
southPointer = south;
eastPointer = east;
westPointer = west;
}
public void setIntercardinalPointers(int northeast, int northwest, int southeast, int southwest){
northeastPointer = northeast;
northwestPointer=northwest;
southeastPointer=southeast;
southwestPointer=southwest;
}
public void setElevationPointers(int up, int down){
upPointer = up;
downPointer = down;
}
public String whatToReturn(String string){
String importantPart = "";
if(string.matches("travel.*")){
String substring = string.substring(6);
}
else {
importantPart = "Interactable";
String substring = string.substring(6);
if (substring.matches("\\bnorth\\b")) {
if(northInteractable!=0){
}
}
else if (substring.matches("\\bsouth\\b"))
else if (substring.matches("\\beast\\b"))
else if (substring.matches("\\bwest\\b"))
else if (substring.contains("northeast"))
else if (substring.contains("northwest"))
else if (substring.contains("southeast"))
else if (substring.contains("southwest"))
else if (substring.contains("up"))
else if (substring.contains("down"))
}
return importantPart;
}
}
I did not see the adventure tag until after I typed this, so I will start perusing through there, but will still post this, so my apologies if there is a good answer to this and I have yet to find it.
as a recap: what would be a good way to relate a few objects to create a room object (that gets its information from a file (XML being what im used to)) having exits, descriptions, and interactions. and the user interacting with these based off keywords that can be inputted freely, and not restricted to say, index values of array's holding keywords.
Im thinking when the user types something like "travel north" to first check if they typed a keyword, in this case being travel, then a direction. Then somewhree else checking if it states travel, check north with a possible northExit a room may or may not have. Then if its another keyword, say like check, to make it easy also have the exact same directions, but check for a different string.
Then if room "northExit" exists, get an option somehow, with a pointer to another roomID. though This thought process causes me issues when thinking about future possibility of requiring items for getting to the next room. Also where to store/acquire these options is causing some difficulties.
There are two things I would like to introduce to you. The first, in the enum. You can think of this as a special kind of class where all the possible options are enumerated in the class definition. This is perfect for things like, in your case, directions. Enums can be simple, where you just list all of the possible options for use in other classes:
public enum Direction {
NORTH, NORTH_EAST, EAST, SOUTH_EAST, SOUTH, SOUTH_WEST, WEST, NOTH_WEST;
}
They can be a bit more complex, if you want them to have methods and attributes of their own:
public enum Direction {
NORTH(true), NORTH_EAST(false), EAST(true), SOUTH_EAST(false), SOUTH(true), SOUTH_WEST(false), WEST(true), NOTH_WEST(false);
private final boolean isCardinal;
private Direction(boolean isCardinal){
this.isCardinal = isCardinal;
}
public boolean isCardinal(){
return isCardinal;
}
public static Collection<Direction> getCardinalDirections(){
return Arrays.asList(Direction.values()).stream().filter(Direction::isCardinal).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
public static Collection<Direction> getIncardinalDirections(){
return Arrays.asList(Direction.values()).stream().filter(x -> !x.isCardinal()).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
}
Please read more about Java enum types here.
The second thing I would like to introduce to you is the data structure known as the Map. Maps are also known as Dictionaries, and that can often help understanding how they work. A Map will take one object and map it to another object, like how a Dictionary maps a word to its definition, or a phonebook maps a person's name to their phone number. We can simplify your Room class a ton by using a Map. I am not going to reproduce all of your code, since I'm focusing on your Room exists right now:
public class Room {
private Map<Direction, Room> exits;
public Room(){
this.exits = new HashMap<>();
}
public void setExit(Direction direction, Room room){
this.exits.put(direction, room);
}
public Room getExit(Direction direction){
return this.exits.get(direction);
}
}
Please read more about the Java Map interface here.
You will, of course, need to adapt your methods which are reading from XML, etc. But, now, your Room class should be greatly simplified.
I hope this points you in a helpful direction.
I am newbie to object orientated programming and trying to construct something which resembles a basic vote counter which should take an int parameter that represents a choice of two candidates and print the election results to the terminal window. albeit (the votes attributable to each candidate and the total votes cast)
The method I am looking for should also return a string that gives information on the success or failure of casting the vote.”your vote has been cast” “invalid choice, no vote cast"
I have created a class and the constructors and also implemented some basic get methods.
I am wondering how I should go about achieving this objective albeit through a conditional statement or using some sort of advanced method.
any help in terms of the syntax or wider approach would be appreciated.
public class VoteCounter {
private String candidate1;
private String candidate2;
private int candidate1Votes;
private int candidate2Votes;
private boolean completed;
public VoteCounter(String candidate1, String candidate2) {
this.candidate1 = candidate1;
this.candidate2 = candidate2;
this.candidate1Votes = 0;
this.candidate2Votes = 0;
this.completed = false;
}
public VoteCounter() {
this("CANDIDATE 1", "CANDIDATE 2");
}
public String getCandidate1 () {
return this.candidate1;
}
public String getCandidate2 () {
return this.candidate2;
}
public Boolean getCompleted () {
return this.completed;
}
public void setCompleted (boolean completed) {
this.completed = completed;
}
}
Something like this?
private String vote(int choice)
{
if(choice == 1)
{
candidate1Votes++;
}
else if(choice == 2)
{
candidate2Votes++;
}
else
{
return "invalid choice, no vote cast";
}
return "your vote has been cast";
}
I would do that in more general manner, avoiding code duplication and allowing to change number of candidates easily.
So let's make a class Vote similar to your VoteCounter but only for one candidate, with following fields:
private String candidate; // init this in constructor
private int candidateVotes; // initially 0, so no need to init
and with vote() method like in other answer but also without a candiadate, so:
public void vote() {
candidateVotes++;
}
Then you can make class VoteCounter which will take any number of candidates and will keep them in Array or Map.
Map<Integer, Vote> votes = new HashMap<>();
then you're creating vote method with choice:
public void vote(int choice) {
votes.get(choice).vote();
}
Then all is left is to iterate through your votes map and find the one with biggest number of votes.
This question already has answers here:
How to return multiple objects from a Java method?
(25 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I am using a simulator to play craps and I am trying to return two values from the same method (or rather I would like to).
When I wrote my return statement I simply tried putting "&" which compiled and runs properly; but I have no way of accessing the second returned value.
public static int crapsGame(){
int myPoint;
int gameStatus = rollagain;
int d1,d2;
int rolls=1;
d1 = rollDice();
d2 = rollDice();
switch ( d1+d2 ) {
case 7:
case 11:
gameStatus = win;
break;
case 2:
case 3:
case 12:
gameStatus = loss;
break;
default:
myPoint = d1+d2;
do {
d1=rollDice();
d2=rollDice();
rolls++;
if ( d1+d2 == myPoint )
gameStatus = win;
else if ( d1+d2 == 7 )
gameStatus = loss;
} while (gameStatus == rollagain);
} // end of switch
return gameStatus & rolls;
}
When I return the value as:
gameStatus=crapsGame();
It appropriately sets the varaible to win or lose but if I try something as simple as following that statement with:
rolls=crapsGame();
It is assigned the same value as gamestatus...a 0 or a 1 (win or lose).
Any way that I can access the second returned value? Or is there a completely different way to go about it?
Create your own value holder object to hold both values, then return it.
return new ValueHolder(gameStatus, rolls);
It's possible to return an array with multiple values, but that's cryptic and it does nothing for readability. It's much easier to understand what this means...
valueHolder.getGameStatus()
than what this means.
intArray[0]
returning gameStatus & rolls means "return the bitwise and of gameStatus and rolls" which probably is not what you want
you have some options here:
return an array
create a class that represents the response with a property for each value and return an instance
use one of the many java collections to return the values (probably lists or maps)
You can return an array of values or a Collection of values.
Is it possible to return more than one value from a method in Java?
No it is not. Java allows only one value to be returned. This restriction is hard-wired into the language.
However, there are a few approaches to deal with this restriction:
Write a light-weight "holder" class with fields for the multiple values you want to return, and create and return an instance of that class.
Return a Map containing the values. The problem with this (and the next) approach is that you are straying into an area that requires runtime type checking ... and that can lead to fragility.
Return an array containing the values. The array has to have a base type that will accommodate the types of all of the values.
If this is a method on an object, then add some fields on the same object and methods that allow the caller to pick up "auxiliary results" from the last call. (For example, the JDBC ResultSet class does this to allow a client to determine if the value just retrieved was a NULL.) The problem is that this makes the class non-reentrant at the instance level.
(You could even return extra results in statics, but it is a really bad idea. It makes the class non-reentrant across all instances, not to mention all of the other badnesses associated with misused statics.)
Of these, the first option is the cleanest. If you are worried about the overhead of creating holder instances, etc, you could consider reusing the instances; e.g. have the caller pass an existing "holder" to the called method into which the results should be placed.
The best practice for an OOP approach is to return an Object. An object that contains all the values you want.
Example:
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyResponse response = requestResponse();
System.out.println( response.toString() );
}
private static MyResponse requestResponse() {
return new MyResponse( "this is first arg", "this is second arg" );
}
}
class MyResponse {
private String x, y;
public MyResponse( String x, String y ) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "x: " + x + "\t y: " + y;
}
}
If you want an even more scalable approach then you have to use JSON responses. (let me know if you want an example with JSON too)
You can following ways to do this:
Use a Container class, for example
public class GameStatusAndRolls {
String gameStatus;
String rolls;
... // constructor and getter/setter
}
public static GameStatusAndRolls crapsGame(String gameStatus, String rolls) {
return new GameStatusAndRolls(gameStatus, rolls);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
...
GameStatusAndRolls gameStatusAndRolls = crapsGame(gameStatus, rolls);
gameStatusAndRolls.getGameStatus();
Use List or an array, for example
public static List<Integer> crapsGame(String gameStatus, String rolls) {
return Arrays.asList(gameStatus, rolls);
}
private static final int GAME_STATUS = 0;
private static final int ROOLS = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
...
List<Integer> list = crapsGame(gameStatus, rolls);
... list.get(0)...list.get(GAME_STATUS);
... list.get(1)...list.get(ROOLS);
or
public static String[] crapsGame(String gameStatus, String rolls) {
return new String[] {gameStatus, rolls};
}
private static final int GAME_STATUS = 0;
private static final int ROOLS = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
...
String[] array = crapsGame(gameStatus, rolls);
... array[0]...array[GAME_STATUS];
... array[1]...array[ROOLS];
Use Map, for example
public static Map<String, String> crapsGame(String gameStatus, String rolls) {
Map<String, String> result = new HashMap<>(2);
result.put("gameStatus", gameStatus);
result.put("rolls", rolls);
return result;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
...
Map map = crapsGame(gameStatus, rolls);
... map.get("gameStatus")...map.get("rolls");
Sorry if this is answered somewhere due to me missing something obvious, but I've been googling this for days now and it just doesn't seem to make any sense. I've got 3 years of experience in Javascript and am getting into Java now, so I'm not behind on the basic concepts of anything and such.
I'm using IntelliJ for this, but it fails to point out the problem. The communication (access rights and instantiations) between my classes is fine, the code syntax and variable types are as well, etc, so I really can't tell what it is.
I have a Data class, which just holds "read-only" data for the other classes to use.
public class Data {
// snip
public static int[][] specs = {
{6,1,6,40},
{5,2,5,30},
{5,3,4,40},
{4,4,3,60}
};
}
There's another class that has to read this data when it's initialized.
public class Soldier {
// snip
public int range;
public Soldier() {
int x = ...; // user input
range = Data.specs[x][1];
}
}
The specs array itself contains its data as defined (ie the array is not empty), x is valid as an index of the specs array (ie 0 <= x <= 3), its type is int and Test has read access to the specs array (all confirmed with debug output statements). And yet, when it tries to set the value of range (then and only then, at that exact point), I get the "Index out of bounds" error.
Can someone please tell me what's going wrong when trying to read the array? Or am I right in saying that this is really weird and I need to post the entire code?
Note: a small new test also shows that, if I change the code to first output a manually chosen value from the array and then set the value of range, the console prints the error statement (and exits the program) and follows it up by printing the manually picked value, but assigning the value and then asking to output range only throws the error... That makes absolutely no sense at all!
Edit: I've edited the code above. The class called Test is called Soldier in my code (I'm making a text-based game...). Below's the stack trace, if it's any good without the full code (which is way long). The basic structure of my program is this:
1) Boot contains the main method and instantiates a new Game
2) Game instantiates x Teams
3) each Team instantiates an Army
4) each Army instantiates x Soldiers
Each instance of the classes is set as an attribute of the instantiating class (public Army army; and an Army instantiation in the Team constructor, for example). It's essentially a cascade of constructors instantiating subsequent classes and assigning them as their attributes.
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 0
at Army.<init>(Army.java:13)
at Team.<init>(Team.java:19)
at Game.<init>(Game.java:22)
at Boot.main(Boot.java:15)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:601)
at com.intellij.rt.execution.application.AppMain.main(AppMain.java:120)5
Edit edit: here's the semi-full code (I'm leaving out the stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with it, including the imports). It's in no particular order and the classes are in separate .java files within the IntelliJ project. The game continues up to the point where a new Soldier asks for its type to be designated (the function performing the user input is working fine and validating the input as proven by a technically identical other part of the game).
public class Boot {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object[] games = new Object[] {};
if (Lib.userConfirmPrompt("Start the game?") == true) {
do {
games[games.length] = new Game();
}
while (Lib.userConfirmPrompt("Do you want to play again?") == true);
}
System.exit(0);
}
}
public class Game {
public Object[] teams = new Object[] {};
public Game() {
for (int i = 0;i < settings.xbots + 1;i++) {
teams[teams.length] = new Team(this);
}
}
}
public class Team {
public Game game;
public Army army;
public Team(Game p) {
game = p;
army = new Army(this);
}
}
public class Army {
public Team team;
public static Object[] soldiers = new Object[] {};
public Army(Team p) {
team = p;
for (int i = 0;i < team.game.settings.xsoldiers;i++) {
soldiers[soldiers.length] = new Soldier(this);
}
}
}
public class Soldier {
private Army army;
public int sight;
public int range;
public int distance;
public int damage;
public Soldier(Army p) {
army = p;
int type = Lib.userTxtIntOptionsPrompt(Data.isoldiertypes);
// HERE is where it crashes, type is assigned and valid but the array access fails
sight = Data.isoldierspecs[type][0];
range = Data.isoldierspecs[type][1];
distance = Data.isoldierspecs[type][2];
damage = Data.isoldierspecs[type][3];
}
}
public class Data {
public static List isoldiertypes = Arrays.asList("Scout","Private","Machinegunner","Grenadier");
public static int[][] isoldierspecs = {
{6,1,6,40},
{5,2,5,30},
{5,3,4,40},
{4,4,3,60}
};
}
public class Lib {
private static Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
// output
// default: 1 query string to print
public static void outBase(String query) {
System.out.print(query);
}
public static void outStd(String query) {
outBase(query + "\n");
}
// end of output
// input
// default: 1 query string to print,
// query and input are in-line (exception: userConfirmPrompt prints query block-wise and default instruction in-line before input),
// keeps user hostage until valid input is given (exception: userPrompt returns blindly)
public static String userPrompt(String query) {
outBase(query);
return input.nextLine();
}
public static String userTxtPrompt(String query) {
String menuinput = null;
do {
if (menuinput != null) {
userHostage();
}
menuinput = userPrompt(query);
} while (menuinput.length() == 0);
return menuinput;
}
public static int userIntPrompt(String query) {
String menuinput = null;
do {
if (menuinput != null) {
userHostage();
}
menuinput = userTxtPrompt(query);
} while(menuinput.matches("^-?\\d+$") == false);
return new Integer(menuinput);
}
// end of input
// options input
// default: takes a List of options as argument,
// prints an enumerated list of these options string-wise,
// prompts for a numeral selection of the desired option and returns the number if valid
public static int userTxtIntOptionsPrompt(List options) {
int choice = 0;
Boolean chosen = false;
do {
if (chosen == true) {
userHostage();
} else {
chosen = true;
}
chosen = true;
for (int i = 0;i < options.size() - 2;i++) {
outStd((i + 1) + ") " + options.get(i) + ",");
}
outStd((options.size() - 1) + ") " + options.get(options.size() - 2) + "\nand " + options.size() + ") " + options.get(options.size() - 1) + ".");
choice = userIntPrompt("Enter the number of the option you'd like to select: ") - 1;
} while(choice < 0 || choice >= options.size());
return choice;
}
// end of options input
// miscellaneous
public static void userHostage() {
outStd("Invalid operation. Please try again.");
}
}
The problem is in your Army class:
public static Object[] soldiers = new Object[] {};
You initialize an empty (length == 0) array named soldiers, but later you access:
soldiers[soldiers.length] = new Soldier(this);
This causes the failure.
By definition, soldiers.length is out of the bound of the array (since the bound is from 0 to soldiers.length-1)
To overcome it - make sure you allocate enough space in the array soldiers or use a dynamic array (ArrayList) instead. You can append elements to an ArrayList using ArrayList.add(), and you don't need to know the expected size before filling it up.
The x should be greater than -1 and less than 4.
The stacktrace does not mention the Solder class, its in the conctructor of the Army class.
Any how, only knowing that the index should be within a range is not enough. As a programmer its your duty to validate the index before trying to access an element at that index.
if(index > 0 && index < array.length) {
//then only acess the element at index
Problem is the array soldiers is of size 0.
This line int x = ...; // user input implies that you are taking input in some fashion from the user and accessing the array with it. Are you checking this value to see that is in range (i.e., between 0 and 3)? If not, this may be why your testing works.
Edit: something like this might solve it for you:
public class Army {
public Team team;
public Vector<Soldier> soldiers;
public Army(Team p) {
soldiers = new Vector<Soldier>()
team = p;
for (int i = 0;i < team.game.settings.xsoldiers;i++) {
soldiers.add(new Soldier(this));
}
}
}
Judging by your other code, this sort of pattern will be useful in your Game object as well.