Generics: Nested Map Declaration

[Aryeh Golob]

I am using a nested Map and the generics declaration is pretty unruly.

   Map<String, Map<String, Map<String, Set<String>>>> segMap = new HashMap<String, Map<String, Map<String, Set<String>>>>(); 

Is there any way to shorten things?

Thanks,
Aryeh

[Daniel Chemko]

If thats what you need, then why worry about syntax?

I'd consider replacing the nested maps into concrete objects that may have maps within them, but only if the need requires. In itself, the data structure is very complicated, so that when you're using generics, you could get lost in the nesting.

Modeling complex structures are hard, but generics makes sure you don't make obvious mistakes in bad casting.

[Aryeh Golob]

Hi Daniel and thanks for your response!

I would normally use objects in such an instance, but this data structure is used for printing purposes only.

Was just curious if there as an easier way, but I can live with this (I guess .

-Aryeh

[Bill Shirley]

report generation is one of the ugliest parts of coding,
if it's ugly, it's ugly,

[Rob Spoor]

Ugly workaround: create subclasses that take away the generics:

class SetMap extends HashMap<String, Set<String>> { }
class SetMapMap extends HashMap<String, SetMap> { }

That would replace your declaration to Map<String, SetMapMap>.

But like I said, it's ugly. Plus you loose the advantages of programming against interfaces.

[Aryeh Golob]

Interesting work-around. Thanks!