I need a key-value store (e.g. a Mapor a custom class) which only allows keys out of a previously defined set, e.g. only the keys ["apple", "orange"]. Is there anything like this built-in in Kotlin? Otherwise, how could one do this? Maybe like the following code?
class KeyValueStore(val allowedKeys: List<String>){
private val map = mutableMapOf<String,Any>()
fun add(key: String, value: Any) {
if(!allowedKeys.contains(key))
throw Exception("key $key not allowed")
map.put(key, value)
}
// code for reading keys, like get(key: String) and getKeys()
}
The best solution for your problem would be to use an enum, which provides exactly the functionality that you're looking for. According to the docs, you can declare an enum like so:
enum class AllowedKeys {
APPLE, ORANGE
}
then, you could declare the keys with your enum!
Since the keys are known at compile time, you could simply use an enum instead of String as the keys of a regular Map:
enum class Fruit {
APPLE, ORANGE
}
val fruitMap = mutableMapOf<Fruit, String>()
Instead of Any, use whatever type you need for your values, otherwise it's not convenient to use.
If the types of the values depend on the key (a heterogeneous map), then I would first seriously consider using a regular class with your "keys" as properties. You can access the list of properties via reflection if necessary.
Another option is to define a generic key class, so the get function returns a type that depends on the type parameter of the key (see how CoroutineContext works in Kotlin coroutines).
For reference, it's possible to do this if you don't know the set of keys until runtime. But it involves writing quite a bit of code; I don't think there's an easy way.
(I wrote my own Map class for this. We needed a massive number of these maps in memory, each with the same 2 or 3 keys, so I ended up writing a Map implementation pretty much from scratch: it used a passed-in array of keys — so all maps could share the same key array — and a private array of values, the same size. The code was quite long, but pretty simple. Most operations meant scanning the list of keys to find the right index, so the theoretic performance was dire; but since the list was always extremely short, it performed really well in practice. And it saved GBs of memory compared to using HashMap. I don't think I have the code any more, and it'd be far too long to post here, but I hope the idea is interesting.)
Related
I wonder if a data class with one of the properties being a function, such as:
data class Holder(val x: Data, val f: () -> Unit)
can work at all, since the following test fails.
val a = {}
val b = {}
Assert.assertEquals(a, b)
Update: Use case for this could be to have a
data class ButtonDescriptor(val text: String, val onClick: () -> Unit)
and then flow it to UI whilst doing distinctUntilChanged()
I don't think this is possible, I'm afraid.
You can of course check reference equality (===, or == in this case because functions don't generally override equals()). That would give you a definite answer where you have references to the same function instance. But that doesn't check structural equality, and so reports the two lambdas in the question as different.
You can check whether the two functions are instances of the same class by checking their .javaClass property. If the same, that would imply that they do the same processing — though I think they could still have different variables/captures. However, if different, that wouldn't tell you anything. Even the simple examples in the question are different classes…
And of course, you can't check them as ‘black boxes’ — it's not feasible to try every possible input and check their outputs. (Even assuming they were pure functions with no side effects, which in general isn't true!)
You might be able to get their bytecode from a classloader, and compare that, but I really wouldn't recommend it — it'd be a lot of unnecessary work, you'd have to allow for the difference in class names etc., it would probably have a lot of false negatives, and again I think it could return the same code for two functions which behaved differently due to different parameters/captures.
So no, I don't think this is possible in JVM languages.
What are you trying to achieve with this, and could there be another way? (For example, if these functions are under your control, can you arrange for reference equality to do what you need? Or could you use function objects with an extra property giving an ID or something else you could compare?)
When you create your data class, if you pass the function by reference it will work with DiffUtils and distinctUntilChanged(). Function references do not break the isEquals() method of data classes in the same way that a lambda does.
For example, you create a function for your onClick:
private fun onClick() { // handle click }
and create your data class like
BottomDescriptor("some text", ::onClick)
I have am trying to create a recursive data class like so:
data class AttributeId (
val name: String,
val id: Int,
val children: List<AttributeId>?
)
The thing I'm struggling with now is building the data class by iterating over a source object.
How do I recursively build this object?? Is a data class the wrong solution here?
EDIT: Some more information about the Source object from which I want to construct my data class instance
The source object is a Java Stream that essentially* has the following shape:
public Category(final String value,
final Integer id,
final List<Category> children) {
this.value = value;
this.id = id;
this.children = children;
}
(For brevity the fields I don't care about have been removed from example)
I think I need to map over this stream and call a recursive function in order to construct the AttributeId data class, but my attempts seem to end in a stack overflow and a lot of confusion!
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with a data class that contains references to others.
There are certainly some gotchas. For example:
If the list were mutable, or if its field was mutable (i.e. var rather than val), then you'd have to take care because its hashcode &c could change.
And if the chain of links could form a loop (i.e. you could follow the links and end up back at the original class), that could be very dangerous. (E.g. calling a method such as toString() or hashCode() might either get stuck in an endless loop or crash the thread with a StackOverflowError. You'd have to prevent that by overriding those methods to prevent them recursing.) But that couldn't happen if the list and field were both immutable.
None of these issues are specific to data classes, though; a normal class could suffer the same issues (especially if you overrode methods like toString() or hashCode() without taking care). So whether you make this a data class comes down to whether it feels like one: whether its primary purpose is to hold data, and/or whether the automatically-generated methods match how you want it to behave.
As Tenfour04 says, it depends what you're constructing these from. If it naturally forms a tree structure, then this could be a good representation for it.
Obviously, you wouldn't be able to construct a parent before any of its children. (In particular, the first instance you create would have to have either null or an empty list for its children.) This would probably mean traversing the source in post-order. The rest should fall out naturally from that.
I asked a question at How to design a complex class which incude some classes to make expansion easily in future in Kotlin? about how to design a complex class which incude some classes to make expansion easily in future in Kotlin.
A expert named s1m0nw1 give me a great answer as the following code.
But I don't know why he want to change MutableList to List at https://stackoverflow.com/posts/47960036/revisions , I can get the correct result when I use MutableList. Could you tell me?
The code
interface DeviceDef
data class BluetoothDef(val Status: Boolean = false) : DeviceDef
data class WiFiDef(val Name: String, val Status: Boolean = false) : DeviceDef
data class ScreenDef(val Name: String, val size: Long) : DeviceDef
class MDetail(val _id: Long, val devices: List<DeviceDef>) {
inline fun <reified T> getDevice(): T {
return devices.filterIsInstance(T::class.java).first()
}
}
Added
I think that mutableListOf<DeviceDef> is better than ListOf<DeviceDef> in order to extend in future.
I can use aMutableList.add() function to extend when I append new element of mutableListOf<DeviceDef>.
If I use ListOf<DeviceDef>, I have to construct it with listOf(mBluetoothDef1, mWiFiDef1, //mOther), it's not good. Right?
var aMutableList= mutableListOf<DeviceDef>()
var mBluetoothDef1= BluetoothDef(true)
var mWiFiDef1= WiFiHelper(this).getWiFiDefFromSystem()
aMutableList.add(mBluetoothDef1)
aMutableList.add(mWiFiDef1)
// aMutableList.add(mOther) //This is extension
var aMDetail1= MDetail(myID, aMutableList)
Sorry for not giving an explanation in the first place. The differences are explained in the docs.:
Unlike many languages, Kotlin distinguishes between mutable and immutable collections (lists, sets, maps, etc). Precise control over exactly when collections can be edited is useful for eliminating bugs, and for designing good APIs.
It is important to understand up front the difference between a read-only view of a mutable collection, and an actually immutable collection. Both are easy to create, but the type system doesn't express the difference, so keeping track of that (if it's relevant) is up to you.
The Kotlin List<out T> type is an interface that provides read-only operations like size, get and so on. Like in Java, it inherits from Collection<T> and that in turn inherits from Iterable<T>. Methods that change the list are added by the MutableList<T> interface. [...]
The List interface provides a read-only view so that you cannot e.g add new elements to the list which has many advantages for instance in multithreaded environments. There may be situations in which you will use MutableList instead.
I also recommend the following discussion:
Kotlin and Immutable Collections?
EDIT (added content):
You can do this is a one-liner without any add invocation:
val list = listOf(mBluetoothDef1, mWiFiDef1)
When is it acceptable to do this. For example, I find myself sometimes needing to create, say, a form of tuple or something that has a key
so like a
String -> (myObj1, myObj2, myObj3)
I end up making a class to hold the myObj1 -> 3 but as you can see this class has limited fields so it seems like its a waste of a class as such.
Should I not worry about that or is it bad design to create classes for list storage purposes?
It depends on how complicated the list objects are. Most languages/frameworks have build in classes for tuples, pairs, key->value pairs, points, associative arrays and similar forms. If your objects are a little more complicated and can't find anything that fits your needs use a custom class. I don't see any problems here.
There are various options:
C# KeyValue: IList<KeyValuePair<string, string>>
C# Dictionaty: Dictionary<string, string>)
Java: Map<String, String>
Php associative arrays: $myVal = $myArray['$myKey']
I am working on a little pinball-game project for a hobby and am looking for a pattern to encapsulate constant variables.
I have a model, within which there are values which will be constant over the life of that model e.g. maximum speed/maximum gravity etc. Throughout the GUI and other areas these values are required in order to correctly validate input. Currently they are included either as references to a public static final, or just plain hard-coded. I'd like to encapsulate these "constant variables" in an object which can be injected into the model, and retrieved by the view/controller.
To clarify, the value of the "constant variables" may not necessarily be defined at compile-time, they could come from reading in a file; user input etc. What is known at compile time is which ones are needed. A way which may be easier to explain it is that whatever this encapsulation is, the values it provides are immutable.
I'm looking for a way to achieve this which:
has compile time type-safety (i.e. not mapping a string to variable at runtime)
avoids anything static (including enums, which can't be extended)
I know I could define an interface which has the methods such as:
public int getMaximumSpeed();
public int getMaximumGravity();
... and inject an instance of that into the model, and make it accessible in some way. However, this results in a lot of boilerplate code, which is pretty tedious to write/test etc (I am doing this for funsies :-)).
I am looking for a better way to do this, preferably something which has the benefits of being part of a shared vocabulary, as with design patterns.
Is there a better way to do this?
P.S. I've thought some more about this, and the best trade-off I could find would be to have something like:
public class Variables {
enum Variable {
MaxSpeed(100),
MaxGravity(10)
Variable(Object variableValue) {
// assign value to field, provide getter etc.
}
}
public Object getVariable(Variable v) { // look up enum and get member }
} // end of MyVariables
I could then do something like:
Model m = new Model(new Variables());
Advantages: the lookup of a variable is protected by having to be a member of the enum in order to compile, variables can be added with little extra code
Disadvantages: enums cannot be extended, brittleness (a recompile is needed to add a variable), variable values would have to be cast from Object (to Integer in this example), which again isn't type safe, though generics may be an option for that... somehow
Are you looking for the Singleton or, a variant, the Monostate? If not, how does that pattern fail your needs?
Of course, here's the mandatory disclaimer that Anything Global Is Evil.
UPDATE: I did some looking, because I've been having similar debates/issues. I stumbled across a list of "alternatives" to classic global/scope solutions. Thought I'd share.
Thanks for all the time spent by you guys trying to decipher what is a pretty weird question.
I think, in terms of design patterns, the closest that comes to what I'm describing is the factory pattern, where I have a factory of pseudo-constants. Technically it's not creating an instance each call, but rather always providing the same instance (in the sense of a Guice provider). But I can create several factories, which each can provide different psuedo-constants, and inject each into a different model, so the model's UI can validate input a lot more flexibly.
If anyone's interested I've came to the conclusion that an interface providing a method for each psuedo-constant is the way to go:
public interface IVariableProvider {
public int maxGravity();
public int maxSpeed();
// and everything else...
}
public class VariableProvider {
private final int maxGravity, maxSpeed...;
public VariableProvider(int maxGravity, int maxSpeed) {
// assign final fields
}
}
Then I can do:
Model firstModel = new Model(new VariableProvider(2, 10));
Model secondModel = new Model(new VariableProvider(10, 100));
I think as long as the interface doesn't provide a prohibitively large number of variable getters, it wins over some parameterised lookup (which will either be vulnerable at run-time, or will prohibit extension/polymorphism).
P.S. I realise some have been questioning what my problem is with static final values. I made the statement (with tongue in cheek) to a colleague that anything static is an inherently not object-oriented. So in my hobby I used that as the basis for a thought exercise where I try to remove anything static from the project (next I'll be trying to remove all 'if' statements ;-D). If I was on a deadline and I was satisfied public static final values wouldn't hamstring testing, I would have used them pretty quickly.
If you're just using java/IOC, why not just dependency-inject the values?
e.g. Spring inject the values via a map, specify the object as a singleton -
<property name="values">
<map>
<entry> <key><value>a1</value></key><value>b1</value></entry>
<entry> <key><value>a2</value></key><value>b3</value></entry>
</map>
</property>
your class is a singleton that holds an immutable copy of the map set in spring -
private Map<String, String> m;
public String getValue(String s)
{
return m.containsKey(s)?m.get(s):null;
}
public void setValues(Map m)
{
this.m=Collections.unmodifiableMap(m):
}
From what I can tell, you probably don't need to implement a pattern here -- you just need access to a set of constants, and it seems to me that's handled pretty well through the use of a publicly accessible static interface to them. Unless I'm missing something. :)
If you simply want to "objectify" the constants though, for some reason, than the Singleton pattern would probably be called for, if any; I know you mentioned in a comment that you don't mind creating multiple instances of this wrapper object, but in response I'd ask, then why even introduce the sort of confusion that could arise from having multiple instances at all? What practical benefit are you looking for that'd be satisfied with having the data in object form?
Now, if the values aren't constants, then that's different -- in that case, you probably do want a Singleton or Monostate. But if they really are constants, just wrap a set of enums or static constants in a class and be done! Keep-it-simple is as good a "pattern" as any.