The moose likes Programmer Certification (SCJP/OCPJP) and the fly likes Doubt about Trees Implementations Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login

Win a copy of Building Microservices this week in the Design forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Certification » Programmer Certification (SCJP/OCPJP)
Bookmark "Doubt about Trees Implementations" Watch "Doubt about Trees Implementations" New topic

Doubt about Trees Implementations

Mateus Brum

Joined: Nov 28, 2007
Posts: 18
Hi guys, this is my first post !

What is rules to manipulatee a TreeMap and TreeSet?
I think some element is equals to other one if it pass to comparators implementations(Comparable and Comparator) rules. Am I correct?

In case below, the TreeSet don�t add c2 object, because de method compareTo return zero

But if I modify to most especific compareTo method like:

It�s work, it�s non-unique (by the view of compareTo) that it not return 0.

I mean, Am I correct o to say than implementations of Tree don�t care about equals to add, remove e verify elements.


Mateus Henrique Brum
Sun Certified Java Programmer 6
Sun Certified Web Component Developer 5
Java Developer - SP - Brazil
Deepak Jain
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 05, 2006
Posts: 637
This is a very good question.

The natural ordering for a class C is said to be consistent with equals if and only if (e1.compareTo((Object)e2) == 0) has the same boolean value as e1.equals((Object)e2) for every e1 and e2 of class C.
In your first c1.equals(c2) = false but c1.compareTo(c2) = true. Hence your implementation of Comparable is inconsistent because compareTo() and equals() are not consistent.

It is strongly recommended (though not required) that natural orderings be consistent with equals. This is so because sorted sets (and sorted maps) without explicit comparators behave "strangely" when they are used with elements (or keys) whose natural ordering is inconsistent with equals. In particular, such a sorted set (or sorted map) violates the general contract for set (or map), which is defined in terms of the equals method.

For example, if one adds two keys a and b such that (!a.equals((Object)b) && a.compareTo((Object)b) == 0) to a sorted set that does not use an explicit comparator, the second add operation returns false (and the size of the sorted set does not increase) because a and b are equivalent from the sorted set's perspective.

Virtually all Java core classes that implement comparable have natural orderings that are consistent with equals.

In your first code you are aware that c1 and c2 are two different objects and when added to set must be added but because compareTo() and equals() are not consistentlt implemented, the second Cat object is not added to Set.
Hence the second implementation is correct.

Mateus Brum

Joined: Nov 28, 2007
Posts: 18
Thank very much for explanations.
I am studing K&B book for exam but this subjection is not treated!
Have you checked out Aspose?
subject: Doubt about Trees Implementations
It's not a secret anymore!