Java Collections Framework

17 April 2014 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)
17 April 2014 OSU CSE 2
 Overview of Interfaces
Iterable

Collection Map

Sorted-
Set List Queue
Map

Sorted- Navigable-
Deque
Set Map

Navigable-
Set

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 3

 Overview of Interfaces
Iterable

Collection Map

Sorted-
Set List Queue
Map

Sorted- Navigable-
Note: Deque
Map does not
Set Map
extend Collection;
Navigable-
but it is a “collection”.
Set

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 4

 Overview of Interfaces
Iterable

Collection Map

Sorted-
Set List Queue
Map

Sorted- Iterable is in java.lang

Navigable-
Deque
Set (because of its intimate
Map
connection to for-each loops),
Navigable- but Iterator is in java.util.
Set

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 5

 Overview of Interfaces
Subsequent slides
discuss only certain
Iterable interfaces.

Collection Map

Sorted-
Set List Queue
Map

Sorted- Navigable-
Deque
Set Map

Navigable-
Set

17 April 2014 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”

17 April 2014 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”
17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 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
• Many methods (including add,
from OSU CSEremove,
components?
clear) are “optional”
• Two interesting additional features:
– Sublist “views” of a List
– A special two-way ListIterator

17 April 2014 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
17 April 2014 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
17 April 2014 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()

17 April 2014 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
Map.Entry<K,V> in the JCF is
“a collection within a collection” that is
very similar to Map.Pair<K,V>
manipulated “in place”
in the OSU CSE components.
• Views for Map:
– Keys: Set<K> keySet()
– Values: Collection<V> values()
– Pairs: Set<Map.Entry<K,V>> entrySet()

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 14

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"}
17 April 2014 OSU CSE 15
Example: Map<String, Integer> m
Note all the aliases here!
Code
There is no problem in this case
State
because String is immutable, m = {("PB", 99),
but consider the potential ("BK", 42),
problems if it were not. ("SA", 42)}
Set<String> s =
m.keySet();
m = {("PB", 99),
("BK", 42),
("SA", 42)}
s = {"SA", "BK",
"PB"}
17 April 2014 OSU CSE 16
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}

17 April 2014 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", 99),
("BK", 42)}
s = {("BK", 42),
("PB", 99)}

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 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 of a collection and trying to modify it

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 19

 Example: List<Integer> s
Code State

s = <10, 7, 4, –2>

s.subList(1,3).clear();

s = <10, –2>

17 April 2014 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)}

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 21

Example: Map<String, Integer> m
Because remove for
Collection Code
(assuming it is State
available for m.values!)
removes one copy, we do not m = {("PB", 99),
know which pair remains in m. ("BK", 42),
("SA", 42)}

m.values().remove(42);

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

17 April 2014 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?
17 April 2014 OSU CSE 23
 Could remove Cause Trouble?
The informal Javadoc for the values method says:
• The object
“The (dynamic)
collection typeremoval,
supports element of which
removes the corresponding
m.values()in mapping
the above from the
code map,be
might via
the Iterator.remove, Collection.remove,
an implementation
removeAll, retainAll of clear or
andList of Queue
operations. It does
– Butnotnot
support the why
of Set; add or addAll operations.”
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?
17 April 2014 OSU CSE 24
 Could remove Cause Trouble?
Since values returns an object whose dynamic type
• The object
“supports” (dynamic)
remove but not add,type of that return
apparently
m.values()in
type the above
implements a fictitious code
(phantom?) mightthat
interface beis
stronger than Collection,
an implementation of but different
List than
or of all of Set,
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?
17 April 2014 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()

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 26

 Overview of Collection Classes
Iterable

Collection Object

Abstract-
Collection

There are no classes

that directly and fully
implement
Collection.

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 27

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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 28

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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 29

 Overview of Set Classes
Iterable

Collection Object

Abstract-
Set
Collection

AbstractSet

HashSet TreeSet

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 30

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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 31

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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 32

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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 33

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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 34

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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 35

 Overview of List Classes
Iterable

Collection Object

Abstract-
List
Collection

AbstractList

ArrayList LinkedList

17 April 2014 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)

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 37

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

17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 39

 Overview of Map Classes

Map Object

AbstractMap

HashMap TreeMap

17 April 2014 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)

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 41

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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 42

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

17 April 2014 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
17 April 2014 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 Notice that the class
– reverse Collections is different
from the interface
– min, max Collection, and in
– shuffle particular it does not
– frequency implement that interface!

17 April 2014 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
17 April 2014 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!

17 April 2014 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”

17 April 2014 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
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
and requires/ensures clauses)
unchanged and returns false. In combination with the restriction on constructors, this ensures that sets never
contain duplicate elements.

– JCF descriptions and contracts use similar

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.
terms, though; e.g.,“collections” may:
Individual set implementations should clearly document any restrictions on the elements that they may contain.

Throws:
• be “ordered” or “unordered”
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
• “have duplicates” or “not have duplicates”
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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 49

Difference #1: Level of Formalism
OSU CSE components.set.Set<T>:
• JCF interfaces include only informal
Javadoc
void add(Tcomments
x) for contracts (rather
than
Adds x using
to this.explicit mathematical models
Aliases:
and requires/ensures
reference x
clauses)
– JCF descriptions and contracts use similar
Updates:
this
terms, though; e.g.,“collections” may:
Requires:
x is• be
not“ordered”
in this or “unordered”
• “have duplicates” or “not have duplicates”
Ensures:
this = #this union {x}

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 50

Difference #1: Level of Formalism
• JCF interfaces
Hypothetical include
OSU CSE only informal
components.set.Set<T>:
Javadoc comments for contracts (rather
boolean add(T
than using x)
explicit mathematical models
andyou
Can requires/ensures clauses)
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”

17 April 2014 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 aboutand
– JCF descriptions the JCF documentation:
contracts use similar
The interface/class
terms, “summary” at the
though; e.g.,“collections” top of the
may:
Javadoc-generated page sometimes contains
• be “ordered” or “unordered”
information that is missing from, or even apparently
• contradictory
“have duplicates” or method
to, the “not have duplicates” e.g.:
descriptions;
• iterator for SortedSet
• a few methods for PriorityQueue
17 April 2014 OSU CSE 52
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

17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 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.

17 April 2014 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.

17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 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

17 April 2014 OSU CSE 62