I\'ve got a map containing some keys (Strings) and values (POJOs)
I want to iterate through this map and alter some of the data in the POJO.
The current code
Iterating over a Map
and adding entries at the same time will result in a ConcurrentModificationException
for most Map
classes. And for the Map
classes that don't (e.g. ConcurrentHashMap
) there is no guarantee that an iteration will visit all entries.
Depending on exactly what it is you are doing, you may be able to do the following while iterating:
Iterator.remove()
method to remove the current entry, orMap.Entry.setValue()
method to modify the current entry's value.For other types of change, you may need to:
Map
from the entries in the current Map
, or Map
.And finally, the Google Collections and Apache Commons Collections libraries have utility classes for "transforming" maps.
Try using ConcurrentHashMap.
From JavaDoc,
A hash table supporting full concurrency of retrievals and adjustable expected concurrency for updates.
For ConcurrentModificationException to occur, generally:
it is not generally permissible for one thread to modify a Collection while another thread is iterating over it.
Create a new map (mapNew). Then iterate over the existing map (mapOld), and add all changed and transformed entries into mapNew. After the iteration is complete, put all values from mapNew to mapOld. This might not be good enough if the amount of data is large though.
Or just use Google collections - they have Maps.transformValues()
and Maps.transformEntries()
.
For such purposes you should use the collection views a map exposes:
Example: convert the values of all keys that contain an upperscore to uppercase
for(Map.Entry<String, String> entry:map.entrySet()){
if(entry.getKey().contains("_"))
entry.setValue(entry.getValue().toUpperCase());
}
Actually, if you just want to edit the value objects, do it using the values collection. I assume your map is of type <String, Object>
:
for(Object o: map.values()){
if(o instanceof MyBean){
((Mybean)o).doStuff();
}
}
In order to provide a proper answer, you should explain a bit more, what you are trying to achieve.
Still, some (possibly useful) advice:
Which approach is best depends heavily on your application, it is difficult to give you any "best practice". As always, make your own benchmark with realistic data.
Another approach, somewhat tortured, is to use java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference as your map's value type. In your case, that would mean declaring your map of type
Map<String, AtomicReference<POJO>>
You certainly don't need the atomic nature of the reference, but it's a cheap way to make the value slots rebindable without having to replace the entire Map.Entry
via Map#put()
.
Still, having read some of the other responses here, I too recommend use of Map.Entry#setValue(), which I had never needed nor noticed until today.