I have an object as following :
public Class MyObjDTO {
private Long id;
private Boolean checked;
//getter and setters
#Override
public final int hashCode() {
Long id = getId();
return (id == null ? super.hashCode() : id.hashCode());
}
#Override
public boolean equals(final Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (!(obj instanceof MyObjDTO))
return false;
Long id = getId();
Long objId = ((MyObjDTO) obj).getId();
if (id.equals(objId)) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
}
And I have two hash sets containing some instances from this object :
HashSet oldSet = new HashSet();
oldSet.add(new MyObjDTO(1,true));
oldSet.add(new MyObjDTO(2,true));
oldSet.add(new MyObjDTO(3,false));
HashSet newSet = new HashSet();
newSet.add(new MyObjDTO(1,false));
newSet.add(new MyObjDTO(2,true));
newSet.add(new MyObjDTO(4,true));
So what I want to do here is to select objects that are in the newSet and not in the oldSet, in this case its : new MyObjDTO(4,true) which I did using this :
Stream<MyObjDTO> toInsert = newSet.stream().filter(e -> !oldSet.contains(e));
Then I want to select objects that are in the oldSet and not in the newSet, in this case its :new MyObjDTO(3,false) which I did using this :
Stream<MyObjDTO> toRemove = oldSet.stream().filter(e -> !newSet.contains(e));
The last step is that I want to select the objects that are in both newSet and oldSet but they have a different value for the attribute checked , in this case it's : new MyObjDTO(1,false).
What I tried is this :
Stream<MyObjDTO> toUpdate = oldSet.stream().filter(newSet::contains);
But this one will return both new MyObjDTO(1,false) and new MyObjDTO(2,true).
How can I solve this ?
One way is to first use a map and then adjust your filter condition:
Map<MyObjDTO, Boolean> map = newSet.stream()
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Function.identity(), MyObjDTO::getChecked));
Stream<MyObjDTO> toUpdate = oldSet.stream()
.filter(old -> newSet.contains(old) && old.getChecked() != map.get(old));
Firstly, your equals() and hashCode() methods violate their basic contract. As per the javadoc of hashCode():
If two objects are equal according to the equals(Object) method, then calling the hashCode method on each of the two objects must produce the same integer result.
Your implementation of hashCode() does not follow this contract. Your first step should be to fix that.
Secondly, since Java 1.2 (nearly 20 years ago), java has provided the method removeAll() that does exactly what you want to do for the first part:
// Given these 2 sets:
HashSet<MyObjDTO> oldSet = new HashSet<>();
HashSet<MyObjDTO> newSet = new HashSet<>();
HashSet<MyObjDTO> onlyInNew = new HashSet<>(newSet);
onlyInNew.removeAll(oldSet);
// similar for onlyInOld
For the second part, you'll need to create a Map to find and get the object out:
Map<MyObjDTO, MyObjDTO> map = new HashMap<>O;
oldSet.forEach(o -> map.put(o, o);
HashSet<MyObjDTO> updated = new HashSet<>(newSet);
updated.removeIf(o -> oldSet.contains(o) && o.getChecked()() != map.get(o).getChecked());
In the last step, you rely on the equals() method of the DTO :
Stream<FonctionnaliteDTO> toUpdate = oldSet.stream().filter(newSet::contains);
The method uses only the id field to determinate object equality.
You don't want to do that.
You want to filter on a specific field : checked.
Besides, you should perform the operation on the result of the intersection of the two Sets.
Note that you should use simply Collection.retainAll() to compute the intersection between two collections:
Set<MyObjDTO> set = ...
Set<MyObjDTO> setTwo = ...
set.retainAll(setTwo);
Then you can filter objects that have both same id and checked value by using a double loop : for + iterator.
for (MyObjDTO dto : set){
for (Iterator<MyObjDTO> it = set.iterator(); it.hasNext();){
MyObjDTO otherDto = it.next();
if (otherDto.getId().equals(dto.getId()) &&
otherDto.getChecked() == dto.getChecked()){
it.remove();
}
}
}
You could do that with Stream but IHMO it could be less readable.
Related
Simple.OData.Client has a typed and dynamic (and basic) syntax.
I like the typed, but I don't want to build out all my types. In the end I really only need two or so types in the results I get.
But my queries need more types to properly filter the results.
So I want to use the dynamic syntax. But I want to cast the results to classes I have.
I can easily do this manually, but I thought I would see if Simple.OData.Client supports this before I go writing up all that conversion code for each query.
Here is some dynamic syntax code that runs without errors:
client.For(x.Client).Top(10).Select(x.ClientId, x.Name).FindEntriesAsync();
Here is an example of what I had hoped would work (selecting into a new Client object)
client.For(x.Client).Top(10).Select(new Client(x.ClientId, x.Name)).FindEntriesAsync();
But that kind of projection is not supported (I get an "has some invalid arguments" error).
Is there a way to support projection into an existing class when using the dynamic syntax of Simple.OData.Client?
EDIT: The code below works. But it's performance is terrible. I decided to abandon it and write hand written mappers for each type I needed.
This is what I came up with:
dynamic results = oDataClient.For(x.Client).Select(x.ClientId, x.Name).FindEntriesAsync().Result;
var listOfClients = SimpleODataToList<Client>(results);
public List<T> SimpleODataToList<T>(dynamic sourceObjects) where T : new()
{
List<T> targetList = new List<T>();
foreach (var sourceObject in sourceObjects)
{
// This is a dictionary with keys (properties) and values. But no
// matter what sourceObject is passed in, the values will always be
// the values of the first entry in the sourceObjects list.
var sourceProperties = ((System.Collections.Generic.IDictionary<string, object>)sourceObject);
var targetProperties = typeof(Client).GetProperties().Where(prop => prop.CanWrite);
var targetObject = new T();
foreach (var targetProperty in targetProperties)
{
if (sourceProperties.ContainsKey(targetProperty.Name))
{
var sourceValue = GetProperty(sourceObject, targetProperty.Name);
targetProperty.SetValue(targetObject, sourceValue, null);
}
}
targetList.Add(targetObject);
}
return targetList;
}
public static object GetProperty(object o, string member)
{
if (o == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("o");
if (member == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("member");
Type scope = o.GetType();
IDynamicMetaObjectProvider provider = o as IDynamicMetaObjectProvider;
if (provider != null)
{
ParameterExpression param = Expression.Parameter(typeof(object));
DynamicMetaObject mobj = provider.GetMetaObject(param);
GetMemberBinder binder = (GetMemberBinder)Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder.Binder.GetMember(0, member, scope, new CSharpArgumentInfo[] { CSharpArgumentInfo.Create(0, null) });
DynamicMetaObject ret = mobj.BindGetMember(binder);
BlockExpression final = Expression.Block(
Expression.Label(CallSiteBinder.UpdateLabel),
ret.Expression
);
LambdaExpression lambda = Expression.Lambda(final, param);
Delegate del = lambda.Compile();
return del.DynamicInvoke(o);
}
else
{
return o.GetType().GetProperty(member, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance).GetValue(o, null);
}
}
It was made much harder because normal casts and such for the dynamic objects returned would only give the first object in the list over and over. The GetProperty method works around this limitation.
Currently I am querying a web service that returns a JSON string.
url = #"redacted url;
returnValue = new WebClient().DownloadString(url);
I am putting the return results into a list of items defined in a model class. I am then running a second JSON call searching a different field with that same search term.
url2 = #"redacted url2;
returnValue2 = new WebClient().DownloadString(url2);
I then create my lists and combine the lists using AddRange.
List<Order> shipments = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Order>>(returnValue);
List<Order> shipments2 = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Order>>(returnValue2);
shipments.AddRange(shipments2);
As a result there are some duplicates. To try and only return unique records I am using the command Distinct when sending to my MVC view from the controller.
return View(shipments.OrderBy(x => x.dtDateReceived).Distinct().ToList());
But for some reason it's still returning duplicates.
Any ideas on what I am doing wrong here?
Thanks in advance for any help!
I ended up correcting it using Shyju's comment above.
I changed the Distinct to the following.
return View(shipments.OrderBy(x => x.dtDateReceived).Distinct(new OrderComparer()).ToList());
Then built the following compare functions
// Custom comparer for the Order class
class OrderComparer : IEqualityComparer<Order>
{
// Orders are equal if their names and order numbers are equal.
public bool Equals(Order x, Order y)
{
//Check whether the compared objects reference the same data.
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(x, y)) return true;
//Check whether any of the compared objects is null.
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(x, null) || Object.ReferenceEquals(y, null))
return false;
//Check whether the order's properties are equal.
return x.sWorkOrderNumber == y.sWorkOrderNumber && x.sCustomerOrderName == y.sCustomerOrderName;
}
// If Equals() returns true for a pair of objects
// then GetHashCode() must return the same value for these objects.
public int GetHashCode(Order order)
{
//Check whether the object is null
if (Object.ReferenceEquals(order, null)) return 0;
//Get hash code for the sCustomerOrderName field if it is not null.
int hashOrderName = order.sCustomerOrderName == null ? 0 : order.sCustomerOrderName.GetHashCode();
//Get hash code for the sWorkOrderNumber field.
int hashOrderCode = order.sWorkOrderNumber.GetHashCode();
//Calculate the hash code for the order.
return hashOrderName ^ hashOrderCode;
}
}
I am asking this question with my limited knowledge of java reflection and AOP.
Background:
I am using annotation based advice in my Java 7 application. Further to get the method parameter which I need to use in my advice I am using spring EL. See below examples:
In first example i want to use second parameter to do my work, whereas in second example I am using a POJO and want to use its "id" field.
#MyAnnotation(param = "args[1]")
public void someMethod(int param1, String param2) {
return null;
}
#MyAnnotation(param = "args[0].id")
public void someMethod(SomeObject someObject) {
return null;
}
But what I actually want is, to get my hands on the parameter names in my AOP. So that I can use #MyAnnotation(param = "param1") or #MyAnnotation(param = "someObject.id") instead.
From what I have known, you can not get parameter name using reflection. But recently I came across Spring cache abstraction(link), where I see:
#Cacheable(cacheNames="books", key="#isbn")
public Book findBook(ISBN isbn, boolean checkWarehouse, boolean includeUsed)
Can someone put some light here, how I can achieve similar behavior.
See MethodBasedEvaluationContext and ParameterNameDiscoverer.
CacheEvaluationContext is a subclass of MethodBasedEvaluationContext.
Code here...
// Expose indexed variables as well as parameter names (if discoverable)
String[] paramNames = this.parameterNameDiscoverer.getParameterNames(this.method);
int paramCount = (paramNames != null ? paramNames.length : this.method.getParameterCount());
int argsCount = this.arguments.length;
for (int i = 0; i < paramCount; i++) {
Object value = null;
if (argsCount > paramCount && i == paramCount - 1) {
// Expose remaining arguments as vararg array for last parameter
value = Arrays.copyOfRange(this.arguments, i, argsCount);
}
else if (argsCount > i) {
// Actual argument found - otherwise left as null
value = this.arguments[i];
}
setVariable("a" + i, value);
setVariable("p" + i, value);
if (paramNames != null) {
setVariable(paramNames[i], value);
}
}
Can anybody say me what is faster: Array or ArrayList? (ActionScript3)
I tried to find a page about this but didn't find anything.
Thank you.
The ArrayList class is a simple implementation of IList that uses a backing Array as the source of the data. Items in the backing Array can be accessed and manipulated using the methods and properties of the IList interface. Operations on an ArrayList instance modify the data source; for example, if you use the removeItemAt() method on an ArrayList, you remove the item from the underlying Array.
Apparently ArrayList class wraps an Array object - hence a plain Array would be faster than an ArrayList object.
As already stated, Array is faster. Actually it is orders of magnitude faster.
The equivalents of array access are getItemAt and setItemAt.
Implementation:
public function getItemAt(index:int, prefetch:int = 0):Object
{
if (index < 0 || index >= length)
{
var message:String = resourceManager.getString(
"collections", "outOfBounds", [ index ]);
throw new RangeError(message);
}
return source[index];
}
and:
public function setItemAt(item:Object, index:int):Object
{
if (index < 0 || index >= length)
{
var message:String = resourceManager.getString(
"collections", "outOfBounds", [ index ]);
throw new RangeError(message);
}
var oldItem:Object = source[index];
source[index] = item;
stopTrackUpdates(oldItem);
startTrackUpdates(item);
//dispatch the appropriate events
if (_dispatchEvents == 0)
{
var hasCollectionListener:Boolean =
hasEventListener(CollectionEvent.COLLECTION_CHANGE);
var hasPropertyListener:Boolean =
hasEventListener(PropertyChangeEvent.PROPERTY_CHANGE);
var updateInfo:PropertyChangeEvent;
if (hasCollectionListener || hasPropertyListener)
{
updateInfo = new PropertyChangeEvent(PropertyChangeEvent.PROPERTY_CHANGE);
updateInfo.kind = PropertyChangeEventKind.UPDATE;
updateInfo.oldValue = oldItem;
updateInfo.newValue = item;
updateInfo.property = index;
}
if (hasCollectionListener)
{
var event:CollectionEvent =
new CollectionEvent(CollectionEvent.COLLECTION_CHANGE);
event.kind = CollectionEventKind.REPLACE;
event.location = index;
event.items.push(updateInfo);
dispatchEvent(event);
}
if (hasPropertyListener)
{
dispatchEvent(updateInfo);
}
}
return oldItem;
}
There's a LOT of calls and checks involved here. Please note, that _dispatchEvents == 0 is true by default (unless you disableEvents), thus writing in fact is an immense operation.
However ArrayList does provide a lot of feature, that are usefull within flex. A good compormise is to grab the underlying Array (accessible as ArrayList::source), peform your operations, and then reassign it (supposing you have listeners observing that Array).
Also, if you go with Flash Player 10, then Vector will outperform Array.
greetz
back2dos
Array is probably slightly faster or they are equal. All an ArrayList is, is an implementation of iList that uses an... Array as a backing object.
Im trying to extend the flex ArrayCollection to be able to search for an object containing specific data and give it back.
Here is my function:
public function getItemContaining(value: String): Object {
//Loop through the collection
for each(var i: Object in this) {
//Loop through fields
for(var j: String in i) {
//If field value is equal to input value
if(i[j] == value) {
return i;
}
}
}
//If not found
return null;
}
Problem is j is always null so the second loop never works. So I read flex loop descriptions and actually it should work just fine. What can possibly be the problem?
Try it like this:
for (var name:String in myObject){
trace(name + ":" + myObject[name];
}
Okay that was actually the same you were doing. The error must be in this line:
for each(var i: Object in this) {
Try using this:
for each(var i: Object in this.source) {
My first instinct would be to have a look at data type. You're setting up a loop declaring j:String and the symptom is that j is always null. This suggests to me that Flex is failing to interpret the elements of i as strings. If Flex only recognizes the elements of i as Objects (because all Strings are Objects, and Objects are the lowest common denominator), it would return null for j:String.
Try this for your inner loop:
for(var j: Object in i) {
//If field value is equal to input value
if(i[j] is String && (i[j] as String) == value) {
return i;
}
}
if you are using ArrayCollection as your datasource, you should look at using the IViewCursor interface. You can supply a custom compare function, or supply the fields top compare to. This interface is well documented with examples in adobe/livedocs
var _cursor:IViewCursor;
var _idSortField:SortField;
var _idSort:Sort = new Sort();
_idSortField = new SortField();
_idSortField.compareFunction = this.myCompareFunction;
_idSort.fields = [_idSortField];
myArrayCollection.sort = _idSort;
myArrayCollection.refresh();
_cursor = myArrayCollection.createCursor();
if (_cursor.findAny(search))
return _cursor;
if you are search for a value in a specific property, then its even easier. Here's the link to adobe livedocs on this topic