Hi,

I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, all of type
"MyProperty".  What I want is to filter the vector and keep the
elements whose "MyProperty.getName.equals(someString)".  Is there any
easier way of doing this rather than iterating over the Vector,
looking at each element, then adding that element to the new, filtered
vector depending on whether it has met the conditions?

I'm thinking that's the easiest way but I've been wrong before, - Dave

laredotornado wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, all of type
> "MyProperty".  What I want is to filter the vector and keep the
> elements whose "MyProperty.getName.equals(someString)".  Is there any
> easier way of doing this rather than iterating over the Vector,
> looking at each element, then adding that element to the new, filtered
> vector depending on whether it has met the conditions?
> 
> I'm thinking that's the easiest way but I've been wrong before, - Dave
.... you could filter  the array 'in house' but thiswill lose the 
original array.

-- 
.... i am beelzibub. i like whoever i want!
FEAR ME, DEAL.

Knute McCuin wrote:
> Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote:
>>> I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, 
>>
>> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a 
>> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2.
> 
> The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the fact 
> that Vector is synchronized.  If you need simple synchronization on your 
> ArrayList there is no difference.

Collections.synchronizedList is the pondered way of enabling that.

>                                   The difference certainly doesn't 
> justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users.

I would not retrieve the benefits of teaching impenetrable practice
to not only the those that posted but also the x100 that just
read.

Debbie



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for
Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them,
to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull
the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so
that they will be forced to run to us crying.

Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there,
I don�t care."

--- Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel 2001-2006,
    daily Davar, 1982-12-17.

On Sep 5, 10:23 am, laredotornado <laredotorn...@zipmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, all of type
> "MyProperty".  What I want is to filter the vector and keep the
> elements whose "MyProperty.getName.equals(someString)".  Is there any
> easier way of doing this rather than iterating over the Vector,
> looking at each element, then adding that element to the new, filtered
> vector depending on whether it has met the conditions?
>
> I'm thinking that's the easiest way but I've been wrong before, - Dave

Hmmm, interesting question. If this is a major component and the
Vector is large - perhaps a hashmap (or table) of named properties, so
that they are split (O(1)) instead of (0(n)). If this is minor
compared to having one table - then you could try sorting them to have
quicker responses.

Otherwise, it might seem like iterating is the simple way to do it.

MSJ121

On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, 

*BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a 
java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2.

> all of type
> "MyProperty".  What I want is to filter the vector and keep the
> elements whose "MyProperty.getName.equals(someString)".  Is there any
> easier way of doing this rather than iterating over the Vector,
> looking at each element, then adding that element to the new, filtered
> vector depending on whether it has met the conditions?

No.

Removing elements is slower in every but the most trivial cases.

-- 
DF.

Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, 
> 
> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a 
> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2.

The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the fact 
that Vector is synchronized.  If you need simple synchronization on your 
ArrayList there is no difference.  The difference certainly doesn't 
justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users.

-- 

Knute Johnson
email s/nospam/knute2008/

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
      ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On 06/09/2008 01:43, Knute Johnson allegedly wrote:
> Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, 
>>
>> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a 
>> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2.
> 
> The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the fact 
> that Vector is synchronized.  If you need simple synchronization on your 
> ArrayList there is no difference.  The difference certainly doesn't 
> justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users.

Maybe that admonition reflects exasperation over how long that Vector
stuff sticks among new Java programmers, seeing as it is an as good as
deprecated API bit. Many (global rather than local) mistakes, or cases
of design less good than it might be, arise from its usage. The
Collections Framework is a whole into which Vector doesn't fit seamlessly.

I understand your reaction though. I didn't mean to bash. My own, and
possibly others', assertive tone on this might be due to a shunning away
from getting into actual arguments over it.

-- 
DF.

Knute Johnson wrote:
> Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote:
>>> I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, 
>>
>> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a 
>> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2.
> 
> The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the fact 
> that Vector is synchronized.  If you need simple synchronization on your 
> ArrayList there is no difference.

Collections.synchronizedList is the recommended way of achieving that.

>                                   The difference certainly doesn't 
> justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users.

I would not underestimate the benefits of teaching good practice
to not only the those that posted but also the x100 that just
read.

Arne

Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> On 06/09/2008 01:43, Knute Johnson allegedly wrote:
>> Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2008 16:23, laredotornado allegedly wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm using Java 1.5.  I have a Vector of objects, 
>>>
>>> *BZZT*. The only possible reason you could justifiably use a 
>>> java.util.Vector would be if you coded with a JSE version prior to 1.2.
>>
>> The only significant difference between Vector and ArrayList is the 
>> fact that Vector is synchronized.  If you need simple synchronization 
>> on your ArrayList there is no difference.  The difference certainly 
>> doesn't justify the bandwidth utilized to admonish those Vector users.
> 
> Maybe that admonition reflects exasperation over how long that Vector
> stuff sticks among new Java programmers, seeing as it is an as good as
> deprecated API bit. Many (global rather than local) mistakes, or cases
> of design less good than it might be, arise from its usage. The
> Collections Framework is a whole into which Vector doesn't fit seamlessly.
> 
> I understand your reaction though. I didn't mean to bash. My own, and
> possibly others', assertive tone on this might be due to a shunning away
> from getting into actual arguments over it.

Arne and Daniele are right.  Vector contains non-Collection methods that have 
no business in the code, and it's completely unnecessary.  Why not use 
ArrayList instead?  What's wrong with suggesting the right thing to do?

Perhaps the OP understood that they were using a synchronized-method class 
with extraneous unnecessary members and did so on purpose, but I wouldn't make 
book on it.  There's just no justification to use Vector over other Lists when 
given a choice.

-- 
Lew