Java Collections Framework

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

1!

Overview
! The Java Collections Framework (JCF) is a group of interfaces and classes similar to the OSU CSE components
! The similarities will become clearly evident from examples ! See Java libraries package java.util

! There are some important differences, too, however, that deserve mention (at the end)
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 2!

Overview of Interfaces
Iterable Collection Map

Set

List

Queue

SortedMap NavigableMap

SortedSet NavigableSet
24 April 2013!

Deque

OSU CSE!

3!

Overview of Interfaces
Iterable Collection Map

Set

List

Queue

SortedMap NavigableMap

SortedSet NavigableSet
24 April 2013!

Note: not extend Collection; but it is a collection.

OSU CSE!

Deque Map does

4!

Overview of Interfaces
Iterable Collection Map

Set

List

Queue

SortedMap

SortedSet NavigableSet
24 April 2013!

Iterable is in java.lang NavigableDeque Map (because of its intimate connection to for-each loops), but Iterator is in java.util.
OSU CSE! 5!

Subsequent slides Overview of Interfaces discuss only certain

Iterable

interfaces.
Map

Collection

Set

List

Queue

SortedMap NavigableMap

SortedSet NavigableSet
24 April 2013!

Deque

OSU CSE!

6!

The Collection<E> Interface

! Essentially a finite multiset of E ! No direct/efficient way to ask how many copies of a given element there are ! Two interesting methods to create arrays of the elements ! Many methods (including add, remove, clear) are optional

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

7!

The Set<E> Interface

! Essentially a finite set of E ! No removeAny or similar method, so you must use iterator to iterate over a Set
! Recall (from Iterator): The behavior of an iterator is unspecified if the underlying collection is modified while the iteration is in progress [except using Iterator.remove].

! Many methods (including add, remove, clear) are optional

24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 8!

The List<E> Interface

! Essentially a string of E ! Access by position (similar to Sequence from OSU CSE components) ! Many methods (including add, remove, clear) are optional ! Two interesting additional features:
! Sublist views of a List ! A special two-way ListIterator
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 9!

The List<E> Interface

! Essentially a string of E ! Access by position (similar to Sequence How do you move forward from OSU CSE components) and backward through a List from OSU CSE components? ! Many methods (including add , remove , clear) are optional ! Two interesting additional features:
! Sublist views of a List ! A special two-way ListIterator
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 10!

The Queue<E> Interface

! Essentially a string of E ! Access at ends (similar to Queue from OSU CSE components) ! Here, add and remove are not optional
! add is similar to enqueue for OSU CSE components Queue ! remove is similar to dequeue

! Curious names for other methods, e.g., offer, peek, poll

24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 11!

The Map<K,V> Interface

! Essentially a finite set of (K,V) with the function property ! No removeAny or similar method, so you must use iterator (somewhat indirectly) to iterate over a Map ! Many methods (including put, remove, clear) are optional ! Like List, a Map supports views of its elements
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 12!

Views in the JCF

! A view is a subcollection of a collection
! Not a copy of some of the elements, but rather a collection within a collection that is manipulated in place

! Views for Map:

! Keys: Set<K> keySet() ! Values: Collection<V> values() ! Pairs: Set<Map.Entry<K,V>> entrySet()
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 13!

Views in the JCF

! A view is a subcollection of a collection
! Not a copy of some of the elements, but rather in the JCF is a collection withinMap.Entry<K,V> a collection that is very similar to Map.Pair<K,V> manipulated in place in the OSU CSE components. ! Keys: Set<K> keySet() ! Values: Collection<V> values() ! Pairs: Set<Map.Entry<K,V>> entrySet()
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 14!

! Views for Map:

Example: Map<String, Integer> m

Code State
m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42), ("SA", 42)} Set<String> s = m.keySet(); m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42), ("SA", 42)} s = {"SA", "BK", "PB"}
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 15!

Example: Map<String, Integer> m

Note all the aliases here! Code There is no problem in this case because String is immutable, but consider the potential problems if it were not. Set<String> s = m.keySet(); m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42), ("SA", 42)} s = {"SA", "BK", "PB"}
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 16!

State
m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42), ("SA", 42)}

Example: Map<String, Integer> m

Code State
m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42), ("SA", 42)} Collection<Integer> c = m.values(); m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42), ("SA", 42)} c = {42, 99, 42}
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 17!

Example: Map<String, Integer> m

Code State
m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42)} Set<Map.Entry<String, Integer>> s = m.entrySet(); m = {("PB", ("BK", s = {("BK", ("PB",
24 April 2013! OSU CSE!

99), 42)} 42), 99)}

18!

View Backed By Collection

! A view is backed by the underlying collection, which means that if the view is modified then the underlying (backing) collection is also modified, and vice versa
! See Javadoc for supported modifications ! Be especially careful when iterating over a view or a collection and trying to modify it

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

19!

Example: List<Integer> s
Code State
s = <10, 7, 4, 2> s.subList(1,3).clear(); s = <10, 2>

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

20!

Example: Map<String, Integer> m

Code State
m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42), ("SA", 42)} m.values().remove(42); m = {("PB", 99), ("SA", 42)}

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

21!

Example: Map<String, Integer> m

Because remove for Collection (assuming it is Code available for m.values!) removes one copy, we do not know which pair remains in m. m.values().remove(42); m = {("PB", 99), ("SA", 42)}

State
m = {("PB", 99), ("BK", 42), ("SA", 42)}

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

22!

Could remove Cause Trouble?

! The object (dynamic) type of m.values()in the above code might be an implementation of List or of Queue
! But not of Set; why not?

! The remove being called is optional if the object type of m.values() is a List implementation, but not if it is a Queue
! How can the client know what interface it implements?
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 23!

Could remove Cause Trouble?

The informal Javadoc for the values method says: The collection supports element which ! The object (dynamic) typeremoval, of removes the corresponding mapping from the map, via m.values() in the above code might be the Iterator.remove, Collection.remove, an implementation List of Queue removeAll , retainAll of and clear or operations. It does not support the add or addAll operations. ! But not of Set ; why not?

! The remove being called is optional if the object type of m.values() is a List implementation, but not if it is a Queue
! How can the client know what interface it implements?
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 24!

Could remove Cause Trouble?

Since values returns an object whose dynamic type ! The object (dynamic) type of that return supports remove but not add , apparently m.values() the above code might be type implements ain fictitious (phantom?) interface that is stronger than Collection , but different than all of Set, an implementation of List or of Queue List, and Queue.

! But not of Set; why not?

! The remove being called is optional if the object type of m.values() is a List implementation, but not if it is a Queue
! How can the client know what interface it implements?
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 25!

Iterating Over a Map

! Because Map does not extend Iterable, but Collection (hence Set) does extend Iterable, you can (only) iterate over a Map using one of its three views:
! Keys: Set<K> keySet() ! Values: Collection<V> values() ! Pairs: Set<Map.Entry<K,V>> entrySet()

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

26!

Overview of Collection Classes

Iterable Collection AbstractCollection Object

There are no classes that directly and fully implement Collection.

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

27!

AbstractCollection
! Has code for many methods (shared, and possibly overridden, by all later implementations of Collection) :
! add ! remove ! clear ! ...

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

28!

AbstractCollection
! Has code for many methods (shared, and possibly overridden, by all later implementations of Collection) :
! add ! remove ! clear ! ...
This methods implementation here, for example, always throws an UnsupportedOperationException.

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

29!

Overview of Set Classes

Iterable Collection AbstractCollection AbstractSet Object

Set

HashSet

TreeSet

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

30!

AbstractSet
! Has code for these methods (shared, and possibly overridden, by all later implementations of Set):
! equals ! hashCode ! removeAll

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

31!

HashSet
! Uses hashing in the Set representation ! Has code for these methods (overriding those in AbstractSet):
! add ! remove ! clear ! clone

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

32!

HashSet
! Uses hashing in the Set representation ! Has code for these methods (overriding those in AbstractSet):
! add ! remove ! clear ! clone
The first three methods, though optional, are implemented here and do what you should expect.

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

33!

HashSet
! Uses hashing in the Set representation ! Has code for these methods (overriding those in AbstractSet):
! add ! remove ! clear ! clone
The clone method makes a shallow copy, i.e., the elements are not cloned; which raises many questions. Best practice: do not use it!

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

34!

TreeSet
! Uses a balanced binary search tree as the Set representation ! Has code for several methods (overriding those in AbstractSet)

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

35!

Overview of List Classes

Iterable Collection AbstractCollection AbstractList Object

List

ArrayList

LinkedList

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

36!

AbstractList
! Has code for many methods (shared, and possibly overridden, by all later implementations of List) ! Similar to AbstractSet but with code for many more methods (because List has many more potentially layered methods than Set)

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

37!

ArrayList
! Uses arrays in the List representation ! Has code for many methods (overriding those in AbstractList)

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

38!

LinkedList
! Uses a doubly-linked list as the List representation ! Has code for many methods (overriding those in AbstractList) ! There is even more detail to the interfaces and abstract classes related to LinkedList, which you can look up if interested
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 39!

Overview of Map Classes

Map Object

AbstractMap

HashMap

TreeMap

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

40!

AbstractMap
! Has code for many methods (shared, and possibly overridden, by all later implementations of Map) ! Similar to AbstractSet but with code for many more methods (because Map has many more potentially layered methods than Set)

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

41!

HashMap
! Uses hashing in the Map representation ! Has code for many methods (overriding those in AbstractMap)

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

42!

TreeMap
! Uses a balanced binary search tree as the Map representation ! Has code for several methods (overriding those in AbstractMap)

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

43!

JCF Algorithms: Collections

! A number of useful algorithms (and simple but convenient utilities) to process collections are static methods in the class Collections, e.g.:
! sort ! reverse ! min, max ! shuffle ! frequency
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 44!

JCF Algorithms: Collections

! A number of useful algorithms (and simple but convenient utilities) to process collections are static methods in the class Collections, e.g.:
! sort ! reverse ! min, max ! shuffle ! frequency
24 April 2013!

Notice that the class Collections is different from the interface Collection, and in particular it does not implement that interface!
OSU CSE! 45!

JCF Utilities: Arrays

! A number of useful algorithms (and simple but convenient utilities) to process built-in arrays are static methods in the class Arrays, e.g.:
! sort ! fill ! deepEquals ! deepHashCode ! deepToString
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 46!

OSU CSE vs. JCF Components

! The OSU CSE components are similar in design to the JCF interfaces and classes ! Though some differences can be attributed to pedagogical concerns, there are other important technical differences, too!

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

47!

Difference #1: Level of Formalism

! JCF interfaces include only informal Javadoc comments for contracts (rather than using explicit mathematical models and requires/ensures clauses)
! JCF descriptions and contracts use similar terms, though; e.g.,collections may:
! be ordered or unordered ! have duplicates or not have duplicates

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

48!

Difference #1: Level of Formalism

JCF java.util.Set<E> : ! JCF interfaces include only informal Javadoc comments for contracts (rather boolean add(E e) than using explicit mathematical models and requires/ensures clauses)

Adds the specified element to this set if it is not already present (optional operation). More formally, adds the specified element e to this set if the set contains no element e2 such that (e==null ? e2==null : e.equals(e2)). If this set already contains the element, the call leaves the set unchanged and returns false. In combination with the restriction on constructors, this ensures that sets never contain duplicate elements. The stipulation above does not imply that sets must accept all elements; sets may refuse to add any particular element, including null, and throw an exception, as described in the specification for Collection.add. Individual set implementations should clearly document any restrictions on the elements that they may contain. Throws: UnsupportedOperationException - if the add operation is not supported by this set ClassCastException - if the class of the specified element prevents it from being added to this set NullPointerException - if the specified element is null and this set does not permit null elements IllegalArgumentException - if some property of the specified element prevents it from being added to this set

! JCF descriptions and contracts use similar terms, though; e.g.,collections may:
! be ordered or unordered ! have duplicates or not have duplicates

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

49!

Difference #1: Level of Formalism

OSU CSE components.set.Set<T> : ! JCF interfaces include only informal Javadoc comments for contracts (rather void add(T x) Adds x using to this.explicit mathematical models than Aliases: and requires/ensures clauses) reference x
Updates: ! JCF descriptions and contracts use similar this terms, though; e.g.,collections may: Requires: ! be ordered or unordered x is not in this ! have duplicates or not have duplicates Ensures: this = #this union {x}

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

50!

Difference #1: Level of Formalism

! JCF interfaces include only informal Hypothetical OSU CSE components.set.Set<T> : Javadoc comments for contracts (rather boolean add(T x) than using explicit mathematical models and requires/ensures clauses) Can you write a formal contract for the add method as it
is designed in java.util.Set ? ! JCF descriptions and contracts use similar

terms, though; e.g.,collections may:

! be ordered or unordered ! have duplicates or not have duplicates

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

51!

Difference #1: Level of Formalism

! JCF interfaces include only informal Javadoc comments for contracts (rather than using explicit mathematical models and requires/ensures clauses)
Warning about the JCF documentation: ! JCF descriptions and contracts use similar The interface/class summary at the top of the terms, though; e.g.,collections may: Javadoc-generated page sometimes contains ! be ordered or unordered information that is missing from, or even apparently ! contradictory have duplicates or method not have duplicates e.g.: to, the descriptions; ! iterator for SortedSet ! a few methods for PriorityQueue
OSU CSE! 52!

24 April 2013!

Difference #2: Parameter Modes

! JCF interfaces do not have any notion of parameter modes (rather than using them in contracts to help clarify and simplify behavioral descriptions)
! If the JCF used parameter modes, though, the default mode also would be restores, as with the OSU CSE components

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

53!

Difference #3: Aliasing

! JCF interfaces almost never explicitly mention aliasing (rather than advertising aliasing when it may arise)
! JCF components also are not designed to try to avoid aliasing whenever possible, as the OSU CSE components are

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

54!

Difference #4: Null

! JCF interfaces generally permit null references to be stored in collections (rather than having a blanket prohibition against null references)
! JCF components do, however, sometimes include warnings against null references, which the OSU components always prohibit

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

55!

Difference #5: Optional Methods

! JCF interfaces generally have optional methods (rather than requiring all methods to behave according to their specifications in all implementations)
! JCF implementations of the same interface are therefore not plug-compatible: optional methods have bodies, but calling one might simply throw an exception: UnsupportedOperationException
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 56!

Difference #6: Copy Constructors

! By convention, every class in the JCF has two standard constructors:
! A default constructor ! A conversion constructor that copies references to the elements of its argument, which is another JCF collection

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

57!

Difference #6: Copy Constructors

! By convention, every class in the JCF has two standard constructors:
! A default constructor ! A conversion constructor that copies references to the elements of its argument, which is another JCF collection

This no-argument constructor creates an empty collection.

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

58!

Difference #6: Copy Constructors

! By convention, every class in the JCF has two standard constructors:
! A default constructor ! A conversion constructor that copies references to the elements of its argument, which is another JCF collection Presumably, copying from a
collection that may have duplicates, to one that may not, simply removes extra copies.

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

59!

Difference #7: Exceptions

! Violation of what might have been considered a precondition leads to a specific exception being thrown (rather than simply a conceptual contract violation, which might or might not be checked using assert)
! Example: an attempt to remove an element from an empty Queue is specified to result in a NoSuchElementException
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 60!

Difference #8: Kernel Methods

! A single JCF interface usually contains all methods applicable to a type (rather than kernel methods being separated into a separate interface from all other methods)
! JCF uses abstract classes, however, to provide default implementations of methods that presumably would be implemented in abstract classes in the OSU CSE components ! Other JCF methods are like kernel methods
24 April 2013! OSU CSE! 61!

Resources
! The Collections Framework (from Oracle)
! http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/collections/ index.html

! Effective Java, Second Edition

! http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/book/ programming/java/9780137150021

24 April 2013!

OSU CSE!

62!