Search Results

Search found 3488 results on 140 pages for 'scala collections'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 46/140 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

  • How to compose a Matcher[Iterable[A]] from a Matcher[A] with specs testing framework

    - by Garrett Rowe
    If I have a Matcher[A] how do create a Matcher[Iterable[A]] that is satisfied only if each element of the Iterable satisfies the original Matcher. class ExampleSpec extends Specification { def allSatisfy[A](m: => Matcher[A]): Matcher[Iterable[A]] = error("TODO") def notAllSatisfy[A](m: => Matcher[A]): Matcher[Iterable[A]] = allSatisfy(m).not "allSatisfy" should { "Pass if all elements satisfy the expectation" in { List(1, 2, 3, 4) must allSatisfy(beLessThan(5)) } "Fail if any elements do not satisfy the expectation" in { List(1, 2, 3, 5) must notAllSatisfy(beLessThan(5)) } } }

    Read the article

  • Creating a blocking Queue<T> in .NET?

    - by spoon16
    I have a scenario where I have multiple threads adding to a queue and multiple threads reading from the same queue. If the queue reaches a specific size all threads that are filling the queue will be blocked on add until an item is removed from the queue. The solution below is what I am using right now and my question is: How can this be improved? Is there an object that already enables this behavior in the BCL that I should be using? internal class BlockingCollection<T> : CollectionBase, IEnumerable { //todo: might be worth changing this into a proper QUEUE private AutoResetEvent _FullEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false); internal T this[int i] { get { return (T) List[i]; } } private int _MaxSize; internal int MaxSize { get { return _MaxSize; } set { _MaxSize = value; checkSize(); } } internal BlockingCollection(int maxSize) { MaxSize = maxSize; } internal void Add(T item) { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection add waiting: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.WaitOne(); List.Add(item); Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection item added: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); checkSize(); } internal void Remove(T item) { lock (List) { List.Remove(item); } Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection item removed: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); } protected override void OnRemoveComplete(int index, object value) { checkSize(); base.OnRemoveComplete(index, value); } internal new IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { return List.GetEnumerator(); } private void checkSize() { if (Count < MaxSize) { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection FullEvent set: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.Set(); } else { Trace.WriteLine(string.Format("BlockingCollection FullEvent reset: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)); _FullEvent.Reset(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Quickly retrieve the subset of properties used in a huge collection in C#

    - by ccornet
    I have a huge Collection (which I can cast as an enumerable using OfType<()) of objects. Each of these objects has a Category property, which is drawn from a list somewhere else in the application. This Collection can reach sizes of hundreds of items, but it is possible that only, say, 6/30 of the possible Categories are actually used. What is the fastest method to find these 6 Categories? The size of the huge Collection discourages me from just iterating across the entire thing and returning all unique values, so is there a faster method of accomplishing this? Ideally I'd collect the categories into a List.

    Read the article

  • Java: How to workaround the lack of Equatable interface?

    - by java.is.for.desktop
    Hello, everyone! As far as I know, things such as SortedMap or SortedSet, use compareTo (rather than equals) on Comparable<?> types for checking equality (contains, containsKey). But what if certain types are equatable by concept, but not comparable? I have to declare a Comparator<?> and override the method int compareTo(T o1, To2). OK, I can return 0 for instances which are considered equal. But, for unqeual instances, what do I return when an order is not evident? Is the approach of using SortedMap or SortedSet on equatable but (by concept) not comparable types good anyway? Thank you! EDIT: I don't want to store things sorted, but would I use "usual" Map and Set, I couldn't "override" the equality-behavior. EDIT 2: Why I can't just override equals(...): I need to alter the equality-behavior of a foreign class. Can't edit it. EDIT 3: Just think of .NET: They have IEquatable interface which cat alter the equality-behavior without touching the comparable behavior.

    Read the article

  • fail-fast iterator

    - by joy
    I get this definition : As name suggest fail-fast Iterators fail as soon as they realized that structure of Collection has been changed since iteration has begun. what it mean by since iteration has begun? is that mean after Iterator it=set.iterator() this line of code? public static void customize(BufferedReader br) throws IOException{ Set<String> set=new HashSet<String>(); // Actual type parameter added **Iterator it=set.iterator();**

    Read the article

  • Recreating a Dictionary from an IEnumerable

    - by learnerplates
    But some of the callers is the Dictionary's TryGetValue and ContainsKey and so require the result of the method to be a Dictionary, how can I convert the IEnumerable into a Dictionary so that I can use TryGetValue ? I've a method which at present returns an IEnumerable. I want to make it more generic by making it return an IEnumerable. method: public IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, ArrayList>> GetComponents() { // ... yield return new KeyValuePair<string, ArrayList>(t.Name, controlInformation); } caller: Dictionary<string, ArrayList> actual = target.GetComponents(); actual.ContainsKey("something");

    Read the article

  • Concatenating databases with Squeryl

    - by Pengin
    I'm trying to use Squeryl to take the contents of a table from one database, and append it to the equivalent table in another database. The primary key will have to be reassigned in the process, but I'm getting the error NULL not allowed for column "SIMID". Why is this? object Concatenator { def main(args: Array[String]) { Class.forName("org.h2.Driver"); val seshA = Session.create( java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:h2:file:data/resultsA", "sa", "password"), new H2Adapter ) val seshB = Session.create( java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:h2:file:data/resultsB", "sa", "password"), new H2Adapter ) using(seshA){ import Library._ from(sims){s => select(s)}.foreach{item => using(seshB){ sims.insert(item); } } } } case class Simulation( @Column("SIMID") var id: Long, val date: Date ) extends KeyedEntity[Long] object Library extends Schema { val sims = table[Simulation] on(sims)(s => declare( s.id is(unique, indexed, autoIncremented) )) } }

    Read the article

  • When to use LinkedList<> over ArrayList<>?

    - by sdellysse
    I've always been one to simply use List<String> names = new ArrayList<String>(); I use the interface as the type name for portability, so that when I ask questions such as these I can rework my code. When should LinkedList should be used over ArrayList and vice-versa?

    Read the article

  • Clojure: seq (cons) vs. list (conj)

    - by dbyrne
    I know that cons returns a seq and conj returns a collection. I also know that conj "adds" the item to the optimal end of the collection, and cons always "adds" the item to the front. This example illustrates both of these points: user=> (conj [1 2 3] 4) //returns a collection [1 2 3 4] user=> (cons 4 [1 2 3]) //returns a seq (4 1 2 3) For vectors, maps, and sets these differences make sense to me. However, for lists they seem identical. user=> (conj '(3 2 1) 4) (4 3 2 1) user=> (cons 4 '(3 2 1)) (4 3 2 1) Are there any examples using lists where conj vs. cons exhibit different behaviors, or are they truly interchangeable? Phrased differently, is there an example where a list and a seq cannot be used equivalently?

    Read the article

  • Properly removing an Integer from a List<Integer>

    - by Yuval A
    Here's a nice pitfall I just encountered. Consider a list of integers: List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>(); list.add(5); list.add(6); list.add(7); list.add(1); Any educated guess on what happens when you execute list.remove(1)? What about list.remove(new Integer(1))? This can cause some nasty bugs. What is the proper way to differentiate between remove(int index), which removes an element from given index and remove(Object o), which removes an element by reference, when dealing with lists of integers? The main point to consider here is the one @Nikita mentioned - exact parameter matching takes precedence over auto-boxing.

    Read the article

  • Having Issue with Bounded Wildcards in Generic

    - by Sanjiv
    I am new to Java Generics, and I'm currently experimenting with Generic Coding....final goal is to convert old Non-Generic legacy code to generic one... I have defined two Classes with IS-A i.e. one is sub-class of other. public class Parent { private String name; public Parent(String name) { super(); this.name = name; } } public class Child extends Parent{ private String address; public Child(String name, String address) { super(name); this.address = address; } } Now, I am trying to create a list with bounded Wildcard. and getting Compiler Error. List<? extends Parent> myList = new ArrayList<Child>(); myList.add(new Parent("name")); // compiler-error myList.add(new Child("name", "address")); // compiler-error myList.add(new Child("name", "address")); // compiler-error Bit confused. please help me on whats wrong with this ?

    Read the article

  • Parsing a dynamic value with Lift-JSON

    - by Surya Suravarapu
    Let me explain this question with an example. If I have a JSON like the following: {"person1":{"name": "Name One", "address": {"street": "Some Street","city": "Some City"}}, "person2":{"name": "Name Two", "address": {"street": "Some Other Street","city": "Some Other City"}}} [There is no restriction on the number of persons, the input JSON can have many more persons] I could extract this JSON to Persons object by doing var persons = parse(res).extract[T] Here are the related case classes: case class Address(street: String, city: String) case class Person(name: String, address: Address, children: List[Child]) case class Persons(person1: Person, person2: Person) Question: The above scenario works perfectly fine. However the need is that the keys are dynamic in the key/value pairs. So in the example JSON provided, person1 and person2 could be anything, I need to read them dynamically. What's the best possible structure for Persons class to account for that dynamic nature.

    Read the article

  • C# Property Access vs Interface Implementation

    - by ehdv
    I'm writing a class to represent a Pivot Collection, the root object recognized by Pivot. A Collection has several attributes, a list of facet categories (each represented by a FacetCategory object) and a list of items (each represented by a PivotItem object). Therefore, an extremely simplified Collection reads: public class Collection { private List<FacetCategory> categories; private List<PivotItem> items; // other attributes } What I'm unsure of is how to properly grant access to those two lists. Because declaration order of both facet categories and items is visible to the user, I can't use sets, but the class also shouldn't allow duplicate categories or items. Furthermore, I'd like to make the Collection object as easy to use as possible. So my choices are: Have Collection implement IList<PivotItem> and have accessor methods for FacetCategory: In this case, one would add an item to Collection foo by writing foo.Add(bar). This works, but since a Collection is equally both kinds of list making it only pass as a list for one type (category or item) seems like a subpar solution. Create nested wrapper classes for List (CategoryList and ItemList). This has the advantage of making a consistent interface but the downside is that these properties would no longer be able to serve as lists (because I need to override the non-virtual Add method I have to implement IList rather than subclass List. Implicit casting wouldn't work because that would return the Add method to its normal behavior. Also, for reasons I can't figure out, IList is missing an AddRange method... public class Collection { private class CategoryList: IList<FacetCategory> { // ... } private readonly CategoryList categories = new CategoryList(); private readonly ItemList items = new ItemList(); public CategoryList FacetCategories { get { return categories; } set { categories.Clear(); categories.AddRange(value); } } public ItemList Items { get { return items; } set { items.Clear(); items.AddRange(value); } } } Finally, the third option is to combine options one and two, so that Collection implements IList<PivotItem> and has a property FacetCategories. Question: Which of these three is most appropriate, and why?

    Read the article

  • How do I rewrite a for loop with a shared dependency using actors

    - by Thomas Rynne
    We have some code which needs to run faster. Its already profiled so we would like to make use of multiple threads. Usually I would setup an in memory queue, and have a number of threads taking jobs of the queue and calculating the results. For the shared data I would use a ConcurrentHashMap or similar. I don't really want to go down that route again. From what I have read using actors will result in cleaner code and if I use akka migrating to more than 1 jvm should be easier. Is that true? However, I don't know how to think in actors so I am not sure where to start. To give a better idea of the problem here is some sample code: case class Trade(price:Double, volume:Int, stock:String) { def value(priceCalculator:PriceCalculator) = (priceCalculator.priceFor(stock)-> price)*volume } class PriceCalculator { def priceFor(stock:String) = { Thread.sleep(20)//a slow operation which can be cached 50.0 } } object ValueTrades { def valueAll(trades:List[Trade], priceCalculator:PriceCalculator):List[(Trade,Double)] = { trades.map { trade => (trade,trade.value(priceCalculator)) } } def main(args:Array[String]) { val trades = List( Trade(30.5, 10, "Foo"), Trade(30.5, 20, "Foo") //usually much longer ) val priceCalculator = new PriceCalculator val values = valueAll(trades, priceCalculator) } } I'd appreciate it if someone with experience using actors could suggest how this would map on to actors.

    Read the article

  • Parsing HTTP - Bytes.length != String.length

    - by hotzen
    Hello, I consume HTTP via nio.SocketChannel, so I get chunks of data as Array[Byte]. I want to put these chunks into a parser and continue parsing after each chunk has been put. HTTP itself seems to use an ISO8859-Charset but the Payload/Body itself may be arbitrarily encoded: If the HTTP Content-Length specifies X bytes, the UTF8-decoded Body may have much less Characters (1 Character may be represented in UTF8 by 2 bytes, etc). So what is a good parsing strategy to honor an explicitly specified Content-Length and/or a Transfer-Encoding: Chunked which specifies a chunk-length to be honored. append each data-chunk to an mutable.ArrayBuffer[Byte], search for CRLF in the bytes, decode everything from 0 until CRLF to String and match with Regular-Expressions like StatusRegex, HeaderRegex, etc? decode each data-chunk with the proper charset (e.g. iso8859, utf8, etc) and add to StringBuilder. With this solution I am not able to honor any Content-Length or Chunk-Size, but.. do I have to care for it? any other solution... ?

    Read the article

  • Can I use foreach to return only a certain type from a collection?

    - by RoboShop
    If I enter the code below, I get an error. Basically, the foreach will break when it comes across a Control that isn't a label. foreach (Label currControl in this.Controls()) { ... } I have to do something like this. foreach (Control currControl in this.Controls()) { if(typeof(Label).Equals(currControl.GetType())){ ... } } can anyone think of a better way of doing it without me needing to check the type? Can I somehow get foreach to skip the objects that aren't Labels?

    Read the article

  • Testing a (big) collection retrieved from a db

    - by Bas
    I'm currently doing integration testing on a live database and I have the following sql statement: var date = DateTime.Parse("01-01-2010 20:30:00"); var result = datacontext.Repository<IObject>().Where(r => r.DateTime > date).First(); Assert.IsFalse(result.Finished); I need to test if the results retrieved from the statement, where the given date is less then the date of the object, have Finished set to False. I do not know how many results I get back and currently I'm getting the first object of the list and check if that object has Finished set to false. I know testing only the first item of the list is not valid testing, as a solution for that I could iterate through the list and check all items on Finished, but putting logic in a Test is kinda going against the concept of writing 'good' tests. So my question is: Does anyone have a good solution of how to properly test the results of this list?

    Read the article

  • An Actor "queue" ?

    - by synic
    In Java, to write a library that makes requests to a server, I usually implement some sort of dispatcher (not unlike the one found here in the Twitter4J library: http://github.com/yusuke/twitter4j/blob/master/twitter4j-core/src/main/java/twitter4j/internal/async/DispatcherImpl.java) to limit the number of connections, to perform asynchronous tasks, etc. The idea is that N number of threads are created. A "Task" is queued and all threads are notified, and one of the threads, when it's ready, will pop an item from the queue, do the work, and then return to a waiting state. If all the threads are busy working on a Task, then the Task is just queued, and the next available thread will take it. This keeps the max number of connections to N, and allows at most N Tasks to be operating at the same time. I'm wondering what kind of system I can create with Actors that will accomplish the same thing? Is there a way to have N number of Actors, and when a new message is ready, pass it off to an Actor to handle it - and if all Actors are busy, just queue the message?

    Read the article

  • VB.NET - Find a Substring in an ArrayList, StringCollection or List(Of String)

    - by CJM
    I've got some code that creates a list of AD groups that the user is a member of, with the intention of saying 'if user is a member of GroupX then allow admin access, if not allow basic access'. I was using a StringCollection to store this list of Groups, and intended to use the Contains method to test for membership of my admin group, but the problem is that this method only compares the full string - but my AD groups values are formatted as cn=GroupX, etc.... I want to be easily able to determine if a particular substring (i.e. 'GroupX') appears in the list of groups. I could always iterate through the groups check each for a substring representing my AD group name, but I'm more interested in finding out if there is a 'better' way. Clearly there are a number of repositories for the list of Groups, and it appears that Generics (List(Of String)) are more commonly preferred (which I may well implement anyway) but there is no in-built means of checking for a substring using this method either. Any suggestions? Or should I just iterated through the list of groups?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >