Search Results

Search found 17770 results on 711 pages for 'inside the concurrent collections'.

Page 34/711 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

  • Java: How to workaround the lack of Equatable interface?

    - by java.is.for.desktop
    Hello, everyone! As far as I know, things such as SortedMap or SortedSet, use compareTo (rather than equals) on Comparable<?> types for checking equality (contains, containsKey). But what if certain types are equatable by concept, but not comparable? I have to declare a Comparator<?> and override the method int compareTo(T o1, To2). OK, I can return 0 for instances which are considered equal. But, for unqeual instances, what do I return when an order is not evident? Is the approach of using SortedMap or SortedSet on equatable but (by concept) not comparable types good anyway? Thank you! EDIT: I don't want to store things sorted, but would I use "usual" Map and Set, I couldn't "override" the equality-behavior. EDIT 2: Why I can't just override equals(...): I need to alter the equality-behavior of a foreign class. Can't edit it. EDIT 3: Just think of .NET: They have IEquatable interface which cat alter the equality-behavior without touching the comparable behavior.

    Read the article

  • fail-fast iterator

    - by joy
    I get this definition : As name suggest fail-fast Iterators fail as soon as they realized that structure of Collection has been changed since iteration has begun. what it mean by since iteration has begun? is that mean after Iterator it=set.iterator() this line of code? public static void customize(BufferedReader br) throws IOException{ Set<String> set=new HashSet<String>(); // Actual type parameter added **Iterator it=set.iterator();**

    Read the article

  • Creating a blocking Queue<T> in .NET?

    - by spoon16
    I have a scenario where I have multiple threads adding to a queue and multiple threads reading from the same queue. If the queue reaches a specific size all threads that are filling the queue will be blocked on add until an item is removed from the queue. The solution below is what I am using right now and my question is: How can this be improved? Is there an object that already enables this behavior in the BCL that I should be using? internal class BlockingCollection<T> : CollectionBase, IEnumerable { //todo: might be worth changing this into a proper QUEUE private AutoResetEvent _FullEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false); internal T this[int i] { get { return (T) List[i]; } } private int _MaxSize; internal int MaxSize { get { return _MaxSize; } set { _MaxSize = value; checkSize(); } } internal BlockingCollection(int maxSize) { MaxSize = maxSize; } internal void Add(T item) { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection add waiting: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.WaitOne(); List.Add(item); Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection item added: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); checkSize(); } internal void Remove(T item) { lock (List) { List.Remove(item); } Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection item removed: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); } protected override void OnRemoveComplete(int index, object value) { checkSize(); base.OnRemoveComplete(index, value); } internal new IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { return List.GetEnumerator(); } private void checkSize() { if (Count < MaxSize) { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection FullEvent set: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.Set(); } else { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection FullEvent reset: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.Reset(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Properly removing an Integer from a List<Integer>

    - by Yuval A
    Here's a nice pitfall I just encountered. Consider a list of integers: List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>(); list.add(5); list.add(6); list.add(7); list.add(1); Any educated guess on what happens when you execute list.remove(1)? What about list.remove(new Integer(1))? This can cause some nasty bugs. What is the proper way to differentiate between remove(int index), which removes an element from given index and remove(Object o), which removes an element by reference, when dealing with lists of integers? The main point to consider here is the one @Nikita mentioned - exact parameter matching takes precedence over auto-boxing.

    Read the article

  • Iteration order of HashSet

    - by eljenso
    If every object added to a java.util.HashSet implements Object.equals() and Object.hashCode() in a deterministic fashion, is the iteration order over the HashSet guaranteed to be identical for every identical set of elements added, irrespective of the order in which they were added?

    Read the article

  • Can I use foreach to return only a certain type from a collection?

    - by RoboShop
    If I enter the code below, I get an error. Basically, the foreach will break when it comes across a Control that isn't a label. foreach (Label currControl in this.Controls()) { ... } I have to do something like this. foreach (Control currControl in this.Controls()) { if(typeof(Label).Equals(currControl.GetType())){ ... } } can anyone think of a better way of doing it without me needing to check the type? Can I somehow get foreach to skip the objects that aren't Labels?

    Read the article

  • C# Property Access vs Interface Implementation

    - by ehdv
    I'm writing a class to represent a Pivot Collection, the root object recognized by Pivot. A Collection has several attributes, a list of facet categories (each represented by a FacetCategory object) and a list of items (each represented by a PivotItem object). Therefore, an extremely simplified Collection reads: public class Collection { private List<FacetCategory> categories; private List<PivotItem> items; // other attributes } What I'm unsure of is how to properly grant access to those two lists. Because declaration order of both facet categories and items is visible to the user, I can't use sets, but the class also shouldn't allow duplicate categories or items. Furthermore, I'd like to make the Collection object as easy to use as possible. So my choices are: Have Collection implement IList<PivotItem> and have accessor methods for FacetCategory: In this case, one would add an item to Collection foo by writing foo.Add(bar). This works, but since a Collection is equally both kinds of list making it only pass as a list for one type (category or item) seems like a subpar solution. Create nested wrapper classes for List (CategoryList and ItemList). This has the advantage of making a consistent interface but the downside is that these properties would no longer be able to serve as lists (because I need to override the non-virtual Add method I have to implement IList rather than subclass List. Implicit casting wouldn't work because that would return the Add method to its normal behavior. Also, for reasons I can't figure out, IList is missing an AddRange method... public class Collection { private class CategoryList: IList<FacetCategory> { // ... } private readonly CategoryList categories = new CategoryList(); private readonly ItemList items = new ItemList(); public CategoryList FacetCategories { get { return categories; } set { categories.Clear(); categories.AddRange(value); } } public ItemList Items { get { return items; } set { items.Clear(); items.AddRange(value); } } } Finally, the third option is to combine options one and two, so that Collection implements IList<PivotItem> and has a property FacetCategories. Question: Which of these three is most appropriate, and why?

    Read the article

  • Null-free "maps": Is a callback solution slower than tryGet()?

    - by David Moles
    In comments to "How to implement List, Set, and Map in null free design?", Steven Sudit and I got into a discussion about using a callback, with handlers for "found" and "not found" situations, vs. a tryGet() method, taking an out parameter and returning a boolean indicating whether the out parameter had been populated. Steven maintained that the callback approach was more complex and almost certain to be slower; I maintained that the complexity was no greater and the performance at worst the same. But code speaks louder than words, so I thought I'd implement both and see what I got. The original question was fairly theoretical with regard to language ("And for argument sake, let's say this language don't even have null") -- I've used Java here because that's what I've got handy. Java doesn't have out parameters, but it doesn't have first-class functions either, so style-wise, it should suck equally for both approaches. (Digression: As far as complexity goes: I like the callback design because it inherently forces the user of the API to handle both cases, whereas the tryGet() design requires callers to perform their own boilerplate conditional check, which they could forget or get wrong. But having now implemented both, I can see why the tryGet() design looks simpler, at least in the short term.) First, the callback example: class CallbackMap<K, V> { private final Map<K, V> backingMap; public CallbackMap(Map<K, V> backingMap) { this.backingMap = backingMap; } void lookup(K key, Callback<K, V> handler) { V val = backingMap.get(key); if (val == null) { handler.handleMissing(key); } else { handler.handleFound(key, val); } } } interface Callback<K, V> { void handleFound(K key, V value); void handleMissing(K key); } class CallbackExample { private final Map<String, String> map; private final List<String> found; private final List<String> missing; private Callback<String, String> handler; public CallbackExample(Map<String, String> map) { this.map = map; found = new ArrayList<String>(map.size()); missing = new ArrayList<String>(map.size()); handler = new Callback<String, String>() { public void handleFound(String key, String value) { found.add(key + ": " + value); } public void handleMissing(String key) { missing.add(key); } }; } void test() { CallbackMap<String, String> cbMap = new CallbackMap<String, String>(map); for (int i = 0, count = map.size(); i < count; i++) { String key = "key" + i; cbMap.lookup(key, handler); } System.out.println(found.size() + " found"); System.out.println(missing.size() + " missing"); } } Now, the tryGet() example -- as best I understand the pattern (and I might well be wrong): class TryGetMap<K, V> { private final Map<K, V> backingMap; public TryGetMap(Map<K, V> backingMap) { this.backingMap = backingMap; } boolean tryGet(K key, OutParameter<V> valueParam) { V val = backingMap.get(key); if (val == null) { return false; } valueParam.value = val; return true; } } class OutParameter<V> { V value; } class TryGetExample { private final Map<String, String> map; private final List<String> found; private final List<String> missing; public TryGetExample(Map<String, String> map) { this.map = map; found = new ArrayList<String>(map.size()); missing = new ArrayList<String>(map.size()); } void test() { TryGetMap<String, String> tgMap = new TryGetMap<String, String>(map); for (int i = 0, count = map.size(); i < count; i++) { String key = "key" + i; OutParameter<String> out = new OutParameter<String>(); if (tgMap.tryGet(key, out)) { found.add(key + ": " + out.value); } else { missing.add(key); } } System.out.println(found.size() + " found"); System.out.println(missing.size() + " missing"); } } And finally, the performance test code: public static void main(String[] args) { int size = 200000; Map<String, String> map = new HashMap<String, String>(); for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) { String val = (i % 5 == 0) ? null : "value" + i; map.put("key" + i, val); } long totalCallback = 0; long totalTryGet = 0; int iterations = 20; for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { { TryGetExample tryGet = new TryGetExample(map); long tryGetStart = System.currentTimeMillis(); tryGet.test(); totalTryGet += (System.currentTimeMillis() - tryGetStart); } System.gc(); { CallbackExample callback = new CallbackExample(map); long callbackStart = System.currentTimeMillis(); callback.test(); totalCallback += (System.currentTimeMillis() - callbackStart); } System.gc(); } System.out.println("Avg. callback: " + (totalCallback / iterations)); System.out.println("Avg. tryGet(): " + (totalTryGet / iterations)); } On my first attempt, I got 50% worse performance for callback than for tryGet(), which really surprised me. But, on a hunch, I added some garbage collection, and the performance penalty vanished. This fits with my instinct, which is that we're basically talking about taking the same number of method calls, conditional checks, etc. and rearranging them. But then, I wrote the code, so I might well have written a suboptimal or subconsicously penalized tryGet() implementation. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't java.util.Set have get(int index)?

    - by Marty Pitt
    I'm sure there's a good reason, but could someone please explain why the java.util.Set interface lacks get(int Index), or any similar get() method? It seems that sets are great for putting things into, but I can't find an elegant way of retrieving a single item from it. If I know I want the first item, I can use set.iterator().next(), but otherwise it seems I have to cast to an Array to retrieve an item at a specific index? What are the appropriate ways of retrieving data from a set? (other than using an iterator) I'm sure the fact that it's excluded from the API means there's a good reason for not doing this -- could someone please enlighten me? EDIT: Some extremely great answers here, and a few saying "more context". The specific scneario was a dbUnit test, where I could reasonalby assert that the returned set from a query had only 1 item, and I was trying to access that item. However, the question is more valid without the scenario, as it remains more focussed : What's the difference between set & list. Thanks to all for the fantastic answers below.

    Read the article

  • Hashtable is that fast

    - by Costa
    Hi s[0]*31^(n-1) + s[1]*31^(n-2) + ... + s[n-1]. Is the hash function of the java string, I assume the rest of languages is similar or close to this implementation. If we have hash-Table and a list of 50 elements. each element is 7 chars ABCDEF1, ABCDEF2, ABCDEF3..... ABCDEFn If each bucket of hashtable contains 5 strings (I think this function will make it one string per bucket, but let us assume it is 5). If we call col.Contains("ABCDEFn"); // will do 6 comparisons and discover the difference on the 7th. The hash-table will take around 70 operations (multiplication and additions) to get the hashcode and to compare with 5 strings in bucket. and BANG it found. For list it will take around 300 comparisons to find it. for the case that there is only 10 elements, the list will take around 70 operations but the Hashtable will take around 50 operations. and note that hashtable operations are more time consuming (it is multiplications). I conclude that HybirdDictionary in .Net probably is the best choice for that most cases that require Hashtable with unknown size, because it will let me use a list till the list becomes more than 10 elements. still need something like HashSet rather than a Dictionary of keys and values, I wonder why there is no HybirdSet!! So what do u think? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Testing a (big) collection retrieved from a db

    - by Bas
    I'm currently doing integration testing on a live database and I have the following sql statement: var date = DateTime.Parse("01-01-2010 20:30:00"); var result = datacontext.Repository<IObject>().Where(r => r.DateTime > date).First(); Assert.IsFalse(result.Finished); I need to test if the results retrieved from the statement, where the given date is less then the date of the object, have Finished set to False. I do not know how many results I get back and currently I'm getting the first object of the list and check if that object has Finished set to false. I know testing only the first item of the list is not valid testing, as a solution for that I could iterate through the list and check all items on Finished, but putting logic in a Test is kinda going against the concept of writing 'good' tests. So my question is: Does anyone have a good solution of how to properly test the results of this list?

    Read the article

  • Using 'or' in Java Generics declaration

    - by Shervin
    I have a method that returns an instance of Map<String, List<Foo>> x(); and another method that returns an instance of Map<String, Collection<Foo>> y(); Now if I want to dynamically add one of this Maps in my field, how can I write the generics for it to work? ie: public class Bar { private Map<String, ? extends Collection<Foo>> myMap; public void initializer() { if(notImportant) myMap = x(); //OK else myMap = y(); // !OK (Need cast to (Map<String, ? extends Collection<Foo>>) } Now is it ok that I cast to the signature even though the y() is declared as being Collection? } } If it is not ok to cast, can I somehow write this (Collection OR List) I mean, List is a Collection, so it should somehow be possible. private Map<String, Collection<Foo> | List<Foo>>> myMap;

    Read the article

  • Java - Make an object collection friendly

    - by DutrowLLC
    If an object holds a unique primary key, what interfaces does it need to implement in order to be collection friendly especially in terms of being efficiently sortable, hashable, etc...? If the primary key is a string, how are these interfaces best implemented? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Ordered List of Keyvaluepairs?

    - by boris callens
    Is there an collection in .net that allows the storing KeyValuePair<string, string> that keeps the order of inserting? OrderedDictionary looked promising, but seems to be rather lacking. Now I'm looking into IOrderedEnumerable, but I can't seem to find any implementation except for ISortedDictionary, but that's not what I want. No sorting needs to be done, just the order of inserting is important.

    Read the article

  • Does The Clear Method On A Collection Release The Event Subscriptions?

    - by DaveB
    I have a collection private ObservableCollection<Contact> _contacts; In the constructor of my class I create it _contacts = new ObservableCollection<Contact>(); I have methods to add and remove items from my collection. I want to track changes to the entities in my collection which implement the IPropertyChanged interface so I subscribe to their PropertyChanged event. public void AddContact(Contact contact) { ((INotifyPropertyChanged)contact).PropertyChanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler(Contact_PropertyChanged); _contacts.Add(contact); } public void AddContact(int index, Contact contact) { ((INotifyPropertyChanged)contact).PropertyChanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler(Contact_PropertyChanged); _contacts.Insert(index, contact); } When I remove an entity from the collection, I unsubscribe from the PropertyChanged event. I am told this is to allow the entity to be garbage collected and not create memory issues. public void RemoveContact(Contact contact) { ((INotifyPropertyChanged)contact).PropertyChanged -= Contact_PropertyChanged; _contacts.Remove(contact); } So, I hope this is all good. Now, I need to clear the collection in one of my methods. My first thought would be to call _contacts.Clear(). Then I got to wondering if this releases those event subscriptions? Would I need to create my own clear method? Something like this: public void ClearContacts() { foreach(Contact contact in _contacts) { this.RemoveContact(contact); } } I am hoping one of the .NET C# experts here could clear this up for me or tell me what I am doing wrong.

    Read the article

  • Java: jaxb Generircs

    - by Mac
    How can I get jaxb to bind to my Vector? I cannot seem to get it to bind a Vector that contains generics as it complains that it cannot recognize my class "shape" or any of its subtypes.. "[javax.xml.bind.JAXBException: class shape.shape nor any of its super class is known to this context.]"? import java.util.Vector; import javax.xml.bind.annotation.XmlAccessType; import javax.xml.bind.annotation.XmlAccessorType; import javax.xml.bind.annotation.XmlElement; import javax.xml.bind.annotation.XmlRootElement; @XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.NONE) @XmlRootElement(name = "XVector") public class XVector<shape> { private Vector<shape> q; public XVector() {} @XmlElement(name = "q") public Vector<shape> getVector() { return q; } public void setVector(Vector<shape> q) { this.q = q; } } I get the following errors: javax.xml.bind.MarshalException - with linked exception: [javax.xml.bind.JAXBException: class shape.Rectangle nor any of its super class is known to this context.] at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.MarshallerImpl.write(MarshallerImpl.java:317) at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.MarshallerImpl.marshal(MarshallerImpl.java:243) at javax.xml.bind.helpers.AbstractMarshallerImpl.marshal(AbstractMarshallerImpl.java:75) public void saveFile(File filename) { try { FileOutputStream fout = new FileOutputStream(filename); objs.setVector(objVec); JAXBContext context = JAXBContext.newInstance(XVector.class); Marshaller marshaller = context.createMarshaller(); marshaller.setProperty(Marshaller.JAXB_FORMATTED_OUTPUT, true); marshaller.marshal(objs, fout); fout.close(); } catch (JAXBException e) { e.printStackTrace (); } catch (Exception ex) { JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(this, ex.toString(), "Error", JOptionPane.ERROR_MESSAGE); } }

    Read the article

  • java: copy-on-write data structure?

    - by Jason S
    Is there anything in Java that implements something like the following interface MSet<T> extends Iterable<T> { /** * return a new set which consists of this set plus a new element. * This set is not changed. */ MSet<T> add(T t); /** * return a new set which consists of this set minus a designated element. * This set is not changed. */ MSet<T> remove(T t); }

    Read the article

  • How to print all values of Vector[]

    - by terence6
    I have a Vector[] of Object type that stores my data. How to print all it's objects ? The code: private static Vector<Object[]> vector = new Vector<Object[]>(); int event=0; for(int i=0; i<10; i++){ vector.add( this.addToObject(System.currentTimeMillis(), event , "String") ); event++; } private Object[] addToObject(long t, int i,String s ){ Object[] o = new Object[4]; o[3] = s; o[2] = i; o[1] = "00000"; o[0] = t; return o; } printing public static void main(String[]args){ main m = new Main(); for(int i=0; i< m.vector.size(); i++){ } } And I'd like to get sth like this : 1202393057117 1 OOOOO String 1202393057117 2 OOOOO String 1202393057118 3 OOOOO String 1202393057118 4 OOOOO String 1202393057118 5 OOOOO String

    Read the article

  • How to give a custom ASP.NET control the ability to parse XML markup to a collection?

    - by Vilx-
    I'm writing a custom ASP.NET webcontrol and would like it to have a collection of custom items which can also be specified in the XML markup. Something like this: class MyControl: WebControl { public IList<MyItemType> MyItems { get; private set; } } And in the markup: <asd:MyControl runat="server" id="mc1"> <MyItems> <MyDerivedCustomItem asd="dsa"/> <MyOtherDerivedCustomItem asd="dsa"/> </MyItems> </asd:MyControl> How do I do this? I though this was all about implementing some interface on the collection or adding some special attributes to the property, but nothing I do seems to work.

    Read the article

  • List method creation

    - by Jonathan D
    I'm creating a list of my defined objects like so List<clock> cclocks = new List<clocks>(); for each object in the list i'm calling a method moveTime, like so foreach(clock c in cclocks) { c.moveTime(); } is the a way i can write some cleaver thing so i can call cclocks.moveTime(); it would then go though the list doing that method I guess I want to create a collection method? I'm guessing there must be some thing I can do I just don't know what. thanks for your help

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >