0

NOTE: In real life situation I would use an appropriate Java collection but in this task I would like to do everything form scratch.

I've done my Googling here on SO and on the rest of the web, but didn't find exactly what I was looking for.

It's my understanding that for-each loop can operate on any class that implements iterable interface and at the same time this class does not have to implement iterator. Am I right here?

Let say, I have the following two classes that are not explicitly derived from any other class.

public class Pile {

   private Thing aThing = new Thing(); 

   // other varibles
   // constructor
   // other methods (including getters and setters)
}

and 

public class Thing {

   private object value;   // Payload
   private Thing link1;    // variables that enable awareness
   private Thing link2;    // of other Thing objects
                           // For example, link1 could be reference to the previous object
                           // and link2 - to the next

   // other varibles
   // constructor
   // other methods (including getters and setters)
}

In this example, Pile would be a double-linked List. But it does not have to.

My goal would be to create IterablePile class through inheritance.

public class IterablePile extends Pile {
}

The only requirement of Iterable interface is to implement Iterator method.

And here I'm stumped. It seems that all examples (or at least those that I found so far) immediately assume that my class is derived from one of the Java collections (for example ArrayList).

What if this not the case? What exactly needs to be done in such case? What steps need to be taken?

Can you point me in the right direction (preferably not writing the code itself)?

And one more question. Will the situation change if Thing is a private inner class of Pile?

It seems to me that I'm missing something basic but can't put my finger on it.

PM 77-1
  • 12,933
  • 21
  • 68
  • 111

1 Answers1

4

If only your IterablePile needs to be iterated, then you just have to implement the Iterable interface that will provide an Iterator. Here's a basic example:

public class IterablePile extends Pile implements Iterable<Thing> {
    //current class implementation...
    private class MyIterablePileIterator implements Iterator<Thing> {
        private Thing thing;
        private MyIterablePileIterator(Thing thing) {
            this.thing = thing;
        }
        @Override
        public boolean hasNext() {
            //add the implementation...
            return (thing.getLink1() != null || thing.getLink2() != null);
        }
        @Override
        public Thing next() {
            //add the implementation...
            //since it is a tree structure, you could use a Queue<Thing>
            //to implement prefix, infix or postfix navigation
        }
        @Override
        public void remove() {
            //add the implementation...
            //in case you don't want to implement it, you can leave it blank
            //or throw new UnsupportedOperationException("never remove!")
        }
    }
    @Override
    public Iterator<Thing> iterator() {
        return new MyIterablePileIterator(getAThing());
    }
}

Still, I would find very odd that only your IterablePile would be iterable, while the Pile won't. Note that your code should be oriented to interfaces (or abstract/super classes) instead of specific implementations. Anyway, this should do.

More info:

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Luiggi Mendoza
  • 85,076
  • 16
  • 154
  • 332
  • Thank you very much for your reply. Could you please also address my 2nd question: what if instead of being a separate class `Thing` were `private inner class` of Pile? – PM 77-1 Sep 24 '13 at 21:57
  • @PM77-1 you mean if `Thing` is an inner class of `Pile`? Then it will still work. If `Thing` will be an inner class, I recommend you to mark it as `protected static`. – Luiggi Mendoza Sep 24 '13 at 21:59
  • How would it look syntactically? Still `Iterable` and `Iterator`? Or will I need to do something like ``? – PM 77-1 Sep 24 '13 at 22:05
  • @PM77-1 if it's `static`, then use it as `Thing`. It won't make a difference even if they're in different packages. – Luiggi Mendoza Sep 24 '13 at 22:07
  • In my task I assume that I don't have access to `Pile`'s source code, that's why I'm inheriting from it and making the child class *iterable*. – PM 77-1 Sep 24 '13 at 22:10
  • @PM77-1 I guess it will be better if you explain more about the real problem so you can get a more accurate answer. – Luiggi Mendoza Sep 24 '13 at 22:11
  • Real problem does not exist. It all came from me trying to answer a [question](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18965327/how-to-instantiate-mylist-object/18965623#comment28013507_18965623) here on SO. I believe that I not only posted a confusing comment but confused myself as well. So I start wondering how such problems can/should be solved in a general case. – PM 77-1 Sep 24 '13 at 22:18
  • @PM77-1 well, just making the class implements the `Iterable` interface solves the problem you asked. I can't think on a real world case when you confront a collection without using the Java Collections API or without a third party library that offers collections like Guava. Anyway, not sure if [this question](http://stackoverflow.com/q/17436634/1065197) sheds some light for you. – Luiggi Mendoza Sep 24 '13 at 22:28