I would like to know if there is a design pattern to cover making multiple objects representing mutiple permutations of a string. For example:
I have a database table containing item names.
Each item has a sort of "signature" (can't think of a better word for it), which is all the letters of the item name, sorted in alphabetical order with the spaces removed.
Given a "soup string" of jumbled up letters, I would like to sort those letters in alphabetical order to match it to a signature in the database, but here's the catch...
Each soup string may contain a few extra letters. So what I'm looking for is a design pattern which would be suitable for taking a string and returning a list of objects, each representing a permutation of that soup string, which I can then fire at the database.
I was thinking about just using a factory, but isn't this outside of the scope of a factory? It does contain logic, (am I right in saying this is not business logic?), but perhaps this is acceptable for a factory or factory method? Then again, perhaps this is an perfect usecase for a factory.
Ultimately, I will probably just go with the factory method. I just wanted to see if there was a better option.
Thanks in advance.
Let's start with an object-oriented way of creating n objects from a given item. First, let's assume that the item is of type String; you can create a class Permutations which implements the interface Iterable<String> (basically, an object that acts as a list of elements of type String)
data class Permutations(val strings: Iterable<String>): Iterable<String> {
constructor(string: String): this(...) {
# transform string to permutations here (bonus: with lazy computations)
}
override fun iterator(): Iterator<String> = strings.iterator()
}
Now, any object of type Permutations can replace a list of type String. Note that this class has two constructors, one takes a list of strings (the primary basic constructor) and one takes just one string and transforms it. This is not a design pattern; it's just a nice way to write objects out of objects without using static methods on util classes.
You can encapsulate the computation that transforms your string into permutations in (1) a different object (such as a strategy class), (2) a lambda function or (3) write our logic into the constructor (not recommended). The way you encapsulate the computation depends on how much flexibility you need. :)
Edit: Small improvement for the primary constructor.
Related
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.)
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 have a list of Longs in Kotlin and I want to make them strings for UI purposes with maybe some prefix or altered in some way. For example, adding "$" in the front or the word "dollars" at the end.
I know I can simply iterate over them all like:
val myNewStrings = ArrayList<String>()
longValues.forEach { myNewStrings.add("$it dollars") }
I guess I'm just getting nitpicky, but I feel like there is a way to inline this or change the original long list without creating a new string list?
EDIT/UPDATE: Sorry for the initial confusion of my terms. I meant writing the code in one line and not inlining a function. I knew it was possible, but couldn't remember kotlin's map function feature at the time of writing. Thank you all for the useful information though. I learned a lot, thanks.
You are looking for a map, a map takes a lambda, and creates a list based on the result of the lambda
val myNewStrings = longValues.map { "$it dollars" }
map is an extension that has 2 generic types, the first is for knowing what type is iterating and the second what type is going to return. The lambda we pass as argument is actually transform: (T) -> R so you can see it has to be a function that receives a T which is the source type and then returns an R which is the lambda result. Lambdas doesn't need to specify return because the last line is the return by default.
You can use the map-function on List. It creates a new list where every element has been applied a function.
Like this:
val myNewStrings = longValues.map { "$it dollars" }
In Kotlin inline is a keyword that refers to the compiler substituting a function call with the contents of the function directly. I don't think that's what you're asking about here. Maybe you meant you want to write the code on one line.
You might want to read over the Collections documentation, specifically the Mapping section.
The mapping transformation creates a collection from the results of a
function on the elements of another collection. The basic mapping
function is
map().
It applies the given lambda function to each subsequent element and
returns the list of the lambda results. The order of results is the
same as the original order of elements.
val numbers = setOf(1, 2, 3)
println(numbers.map { it * 3 })
For your example, this would look as the others said:
val myNewStrings = longValues.map { "$it dollars" }
I feel like there is a way to inline this or change the original long list without creating a new string list?
No. You have Longs, and you want Strings. The only way is to create new Strings. You could avoid creating a new List by changing the type of the original list from List<Long> to List<Any> and editing it in place, but that would be overkill and make the code overly complex, harder to follow, and more error-prone.
Like people have said, unless there's a performance issue here (like a billion strings where you're only using a handful) just creating the list you want is probably the way to go. You have a few options though!
Sequences are lazily evaluated, when there's a long chain of operations they complete the chain on each item in turn, instead of creating an intermediate full list for every operation in the chain. So that can mean less memory use, and more efficiency if you only need certain items, or you want to stop early. They have overhead though so you need to be sure it's worth it, and for your use-case (turning a list into another list) there are no intermediate lists to avoid, and I'm guessing you're using the whole thing. Probably better to just make the String list, once, and then use it?
Your other option is to make a function that takes a Long and makes a String - whatever function you're passing to map, basically, except use it when you need it. If you have a very large number of Longs and you really don't want every possible String version in memory, just generate them whenever you display them. You could make it an extension function or property if you like, so you can just go
fun Long.display() = "$this dollars"
val Long.dollaridoos: String get() = "$this.dollars"
print(number.display())
print(number.dollaridoos)
or make a wrapper object holding your list and giving access to a stringified version of the values. Whatever's your jam
Also the map approach is more efficient than creating an ArrayList and adding to it, because it can allocate a list with the correct capacity from the get-go - arbitrarily adding to an unsized list will keep growing it when it gets too big, then it has to copy to another (larger) array... until that one fills up, then it happens again...
I'm building an app that generates random sequences of musical notes and displays them to the user as musical notation. These sequences can be generated according to several parameters, including density and maximum consecutive notes of the same pitch.
Musical sequences are captured by a sequence object whose notes property is a simple string of notes such as "abcdaba".
My early attempts to generate random sequences involved a SequenceGenerator class that compiled random sequences using several private methods. This looks like a service to me. But I'm trying to honour the principle expressed in Domain-Driven Design (Evans 2003) to only use services where necessary and to prefer associating behaviour with domain objects.
So my question is:
Should the job of producing random sequences be taken care of by a public method on sequence itself (such as generateRandom()) or should it be kept separate?
I considered the possibility that my original design is more along the lines of a builder or factory pattern than a service, but the the code is very different for creating a random sequence than for creating one with a supplied string of notes.
One concern I have with the method route is that generateRandom() as a method on sequence changes the content of sequence but isn't actually generating a new sequence object. This just feels wrong, but I can't express why.
I'm still getting my head around some the core OO design principles, so any help is greatly appreciated.
Should the job of producing random sequences be taken care of by a public method on sequence itself (such as generateRandom()) or should it be kept separate?
I usually find that I get cleaner designs if I treat "random" the same way that I treat "time", or "I/O" -- as an input to the model, rather than as an aspect of the model itself.
If you don't consider time an input value, think about it until you do -- it is an important concept (John Carmack, 1998).
Within the constraints of DDD, that could either mean passing a "domain service" as an argument to your method, allowing your aggregate to invoke the service as needed, or it could mean having a method on the aggregate, so that the application can pass in random numbers when needed.
So any creation of a sequence would involve passing in some pattern or seed, but whether that is random or not is decided outside of the sequence itself?
Yes, exactly.
The creation of an object is not usually considered part of the logic for the object.
How you do that technically is a different matter. You could potentially use delegation. For example:
public interface NoteSequence {
void play();
}
public final class LettersNoteSequence implements NoteSequence {
public LettersNoteSequence(String letters) {
...
}
...
}
public final class RandomNoteSequence implements NoteSequence {
...
#Override
public void play() {
new LetterNoteSequence(generateRandomLetters()).play();
}
}
This way you don't have to have a "service" or a "factory", but this is only one alternative, may or may not fit your use-case.
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']