How to initialize HashSet values by construction?

Question

I need to create a Set with initial values.

Set<String> h = new HashSet<String>();
h.add("a");
h.add("b");

Is there a way to do this in one line of code? For instance, it's useful for a final static field.

Answer 1

There is a shorthand that I use that is not very time efficient, but fits on a single line:

Set<String> h = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList("a", "b"));

Again, this is not time efficient since you are constructing an array, converting to a list and using that list to create a set.

When initializing static final sets I usually write it like this:

public static final String[] SET_VALUES = new String[] { "a", "b" };
public static final Set<String> MY_SET = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(SET_VALUES));

Slightly less ugly and efficiency does not matter for the static initialization.

Answer 2

Collection literals were scheduled for Java 7, but didn't make it in. So nothing automatic yet.

You can use guava's Sets:

Sets.newHashSet("a", "b", "c")

Or you can use the following syntax, which will create an anonymous class, but it's hacky:

Set<String> h = new HashSet<String>() {{
    add("a");
    add("b");
}};

Answer 3

In Java 8 I would use:

Set<String> set = Stream.of("a", "b").collect(Collectors.toSet());

This gives you a mutable Set pre-initialized with "a" and "b". Note that while in JDK 8 this does return a HashSet, the specification doesn't guarantee it, and this might change in the future. If you specifically want a HashSet, do this instead:

Set<String> set = Stream.of("a", "b")
                        .collect(Collectors.toCollection(HashSet::new));

Answer 4

Using Java 10 (Unmodifiable Sets)

Set<String> strSet1 = Stream.of("A", "B", "C", "D")
         .collect(Collectors.toUnmodifiableSet());

Here the collector would actually return the unmodifiable set introduced in Java 9 as evident from the statement set -> (Set<T>)Set.of(set.toArray()) in the source code.

One point to note is that the method Collections.unmodifiableSet() returns an unmodifiable view of the specified set (as per documentation). An unmodifiable view collection is a collection that is unmodifiable and is also a view onto a backing collection. Note that changes to the backing collection might still be possible, and if they occur, they are visible through the unmodifiable view. But the method Collectors.toUnmodifiableSet() returns truly immutable set in Java 10.

---

Using Java 9 (Unmodifiable Sets)

The following is the most compact way of initializing a set:

Set<String> strSet6 = Set.of("Apple", "Ball", "Cat", "Dog");

We have 12 overloaded versions of this convenience factory method:

static <E> Set<E> of()

static <E> Set<E> of(E e1)

static <E> Set<E> of(E e1, E e2)

// ....and so on

static <E> Set<E> of(E... elems)

Then a natural question is why we need overloaded versions when we have var-args? The answer is: every var-arg method creates an array internally and having the overloaded versions would avoid unnecessary creation of object and will also save us from the garbage collection overhead.

---

Using Java 8 (Modifiable Sets)

Using Stream in Java 8.

Set<String> strSet1 = Stream.of("A", "B", "C", "D")
         .collect(Collectors.toCollection(HashSet::new));

// stream from an array (String[] stringArray)
Set<String> strSet2 = Arrays.stream(stringArray)
         .collect(Collectors.toCollection(HashSet::new));

// stream from a list (List<String> stringList)
Set<String> strSet3 = stringList.stream()
         .collect(Collectors.toCollection(HashSet::new));

---

Using Java 8 (Unmodifiable Sets)

Using Collections.unmodifiableSet()

We can use Collections.unmodifiableSet() as:

Set<String> strSet4 = Collections.unmodifiableSet(strSet1);

But it looks slightly awkward and we can write our own collector like this:

class ImmutableCollector {
    public static <T> Collector<T, Set<T>, Set<T>> toImmutableSet() {
        return Collector.of(HashSet::new, Set::add, (l, r) -> {
            l.addAll(r);
            return l;
        }, Collections::unmodifiablSet);
    }
}

And then use it as:

Set<String> strSet4 = Stream.of("A", "B", "C", "D")
             .collect(ImmutableCollector.toImmutableSet());

Using Collectors.collectingAndThen()

Another approach is to use the method Collectors.collectingAndThen() which lets us perform additional finishing transformations:

import static java.util.stream.Collectors.*;
Set<String> strSet5 = Stream.of("A", "B", "C", "D").collect(collectingAndThen(
   toCollection(HashSet::new),Collections::unmodifiableSet));

If we only care about Set then we can also use Collectors.toSet() in place of Collectors.toCollection(HashSet::new).

Answer 5

There are a few ways:

Double brace initialization

This is a technique which creates an anonymous inner class which has an instance initializer which adds Strings to itself when an instance is created:

Set<String> s = new HashSet<String>() {{
    add("a");
    add("b");
}}

Keep in mind that this will actually create an new subclass of HashSet each time it is used, even though one does not have to explicitly write a new subclass.

A utility method

Writing a method that returns a Set which is initialized with the desired elements isn't too hard to write:

public static Set<String> newHashSet(String... strings) {
    HashSet<String> set = new HashSet<String>();

    for (String s : strings) {
        set.add(s);
    }
    return set;
}

The above code only allows for a use of a String, but it shouldn't be too difficult to allow the use of any type using generics.

Use a library

Many libraries have a convenience method to initialize collections objects.

For example, Google Collections has a Sets.newHashSet(T...) method which will populate a HashSet with elements of a specific type.

Answer 6

If you have only one value and want to get an immutable set this would be enough:

Set<String> immutableSet = Collections.singleton("a");

Answer 7

One of the most convenient ways is usage of generic Collections.addAll() method, which takes a collection and varargs:

Set<String> h = new HashSet<String>();
Collections.addAll(h, "a", "b");

Answer 8

You can do it in Java 6:

Set<String> h = new HashSet<String>(Arrays.asList("a", "b", "c"));

But why? I don't find it to be more readable than explicitly adding elements.

Answer 9

I feel the most readable is to simply use google Guava:

Set<String> StringSet = Sets.newSet("a", "b", "c");

Answer 10

With Java 9 you can do the following:

Set.of("a", "b");

and you'll get an immutable Set containing the elements. For details see the Oracle documentation of interface Set.

Answer 11

A generalization of coobird's answer's utility function for creating new HashSets:

public static <T> Set<T> newHashSet(T... objs) {
    Set<T> set = new HashSet<T>();
    for (T o : objs) {
        set.add(o);
    }
    return set;
}

Answer 12

If the contained type of the Set is an enumeration then there is java built factory method (since 1.5):

Set<MY_ENUM> MY_SET = EnumSet.of( MY_ENUM.value1, MY_ENUM.value2, ... );

Answer 13

With Eclipse Collections there are a few different ways to initialize a Set containing the characters 'a' and 'b' in one statement. Eclipse Collections has containers for both object and primitive types, so I illustrated how you could use a Set<String> or CharSet in addition to mutable, immutable, synchronized and unmodifiable versions of both.

Set<String> set =
    Sets.mutable.with("a", "b");
HashSet<String> hashSet =
    Sets.mutable.with("a", "b").asLazy().into(new HashSet<String>());
Set<String> synchronizedSet =
    Sets.mutable.with("a", "b").asSynchronized();
Set<String> unmodifiableSet =
    Sets.mutable.with("a", "b").asUnmodifiable();

MutableSet<String> mutableSet =
    Sets.mutable.with("a", "b");
MutableSet<String> synchronizedMutableSet =
    Sets.mutable.with("a", "b").asSynchronized();
MutableSet<String> unmodifiableMutableSet =
    Sets.mutable.with("a", "b").asUnmodifiable();

ImmutableSet<String> immutableSet =
    Sets.immutable.with("a", "b");
ImmutableSet<String> immutableSet2 =
    Sets.mutable.with("a", "b").toImmutable();

CharSet charSet =
    CharSets.mutable.with('a', 'b');
CharSet synchronizedCharSet =
    CharSets.mutable.with('a', 'b').asSynchronized();
CharSet unmodifiableCharSet =
    CharSets.mutable.with('a', 'b').asUnmodifiable();
MutableCharSet mutableCharSet =
    CharSets.mutable.with('a', 'b');
ImmutableCharSet immutableCharSet =
    CharSets.immutable.with('a', 'b');
ImmutableCharSet immutableCharSet2 =
    CharSets.mutable.with('a', 'b').toImmutable();

Eclipse Collections is compatible with Java 5 - 8.

Note: I am a committer for Eclipse Collections.

Answer 14

import com.google.common.collect.Sets;
Sets.newHashSet("a", "b");

or

import com.google.common.collect.ImmutableSet;
ImmutableSet.of("a", "b");

Answer 15

(ugly) Double Brace Initialization without side effects:

Set<String> a = new HashSet<>(new HashSet<String>() {{
    add("1");
    add("2");
}})

But in some cases, if we mentioned that is a good smell to make final collections unmutable, it could be really useful:

final Set<String> a = Collections.unmodifiableSet(new HashSet<String>(){{
    add("1");
    add("2");
}})

Answer 16

A bit convoluted but works from Java 5:

Set<String> h = new HashSet<String>(Arrays.asList(new String[] {  
    "a", "b"
}))

Use a helper method to make it readable:

Set<String> h = asSet ("a", "b");

public Set<String> asSet(String... values) {
    return new HashSet<String>(java.util.Arrays.asList(values));
}

Answer 17

Just a small note, regardless of which of the fine approaches mentioned here you end up with, if this is a default that usually goes unmodified (like a default setting in a library you are creating), it is a good idea to follow this pattern:

// Initialize default values with the method you prefer, even in a static block
// It's a good idea to make sure these defaults aren't modifiable
private final static Set<String> DEFAULT_VALUES = Collections.unmodifiableSet(...);
private Set<String> values = DEFAULT_VALUES;

The benefit depends on the number of instances you create of that class and how likely it's that defaults will be changed.

If you decide to follow this pattern, then you also get to pick the method of set initialization that's most readable. As the micro differences in efficiency between the different methods will probably not matter much as you will be initializing the set only once.

Answer 18

Using Java 8 we can create HashSet as:

Stream.of("A", "B", "C", "D").collect(Collectors.toCollection(HashSet::new));

And if we want unmodifiable set we can create a utility method as :

public static <T, A extends Set<T>> Collector<T, A, Set<T>> toImmutableSet(Supplier<A> supplier) {
        return Collector.of(
                supplier,
                Set::add, (left, right) -> {
                    left.addAll(right);
                    return left;
                }, Collections::unmodifiableSet);
    }

This method can be used as :

 Stream.of("A", "B", "C", "D").collect(toImmutableSet(HashSet::new));

Answer 19

With the release of java9 and the convenience factory methods this is possible in a cleaner way:

Set set = Set.of("a", "b", "c");

Answer 20

Can use static block for initialization:

private static Set<Integer> codes1=
        new HashSet<Integer>(Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3, 4));

private static Set<Integer> codes2 =
        new HashSet<Integer>(Arrays.asList(5, 6, 7, 8));

private static Set<Integer> h = new HashSet<Integer>();

static{
    h.add(codes1);
    h.add(codes2);
}

Answer 21

This is an elegant solution:

public static final <T> Set<T> makeSet(@SuppressWarnings("unchecked") T... o) {
        return new HashSet<T>() {
            private static final long serialVersionUID = -3634958843858172518L;
            {
                for (T x : o)
                   add(x);
            }
        };
}

Answer 22

The Builder pattern might be of use here. Today I had the same issue. where I needed Set mutating operations to return me a reference of the Set object, so I can pass it to super class constructor so that they too can continue adding to same set by in turn constructing a new StringSetBuilder off of the Set that the child class just built. The builder class I wrote looks like this (in my case it's a static inner class of an outer class, but it can be its own independent class as well):

public interface Builder<T> {
    T build();
}

static class StringSetBuilder implements Builder<Set<String>> {
    private final Set<String> set = new HashSet<>();

    StringSetBuilder add(String pStr) {
        set.add(pStr);
        return this;
    }

    StringSetBuilder addAll(Set<String> pSet) {
        set.addAll(pSet);
        return this;
    }

    @Override
    public Set<String> build() {
        return set;
    }
}

Notice the addAll() and add() methods, which are Set returning counterparts of Set.add() and Set.addAll(). Finally notice the build() method, which returns a reference to the Set that the builder encapsulates. Below illustrates then how to use this Set builder:

class SomeChildClass extends ParentClass {
    public SomeChildClass(String pStr) {
        super(new StringSetBuilder().add(pStr).build());
    }
}

class ParentClass {
    public ParentClass(Set<String> pSet) {
        super(new StringSetBuilder().addAll(pSet).add("my own str").build());
    }
}

Answer 23

Combining answer by Michael Berdyshev with Generics and using constructor with initialCapacity, comparing with Arrays.asList variant:

  import java.util.Collections;
  import java.util.HashSet;
  import java.util.Set;

  @SafeVarargs
  public static <T> Set<T> buildSetModif(final T... values) {
    final Set<T> modifiableSet = new HashSet<T>(values.length);
    Collections.addAll(modifiableSet, values);
    return modifiableSet;
  }

  @SafeVarargs
  public static <T> Set<T> buildSetModifTypeSafe(final T... values) {
    return new HashSet<T>(Arrays.asList(values));
  }

  @SafeVarargs
  public static <T> Set<T> buildeSetUnmodif(final T... values) {
    return Collections.unmodifiableSet(buildSetModifTypeSafe(values));
    // Or use Set.of("a", "b", "c") if you use Java 9
  }

• This is good if you pass a few values for init, for anything large use other methods
• If you accidentally mix types with buildSetModif the resulting T will be ? extends Object, which is probably not what you want, this cannot happen with the buildSetModifTypeSafe variant, meaning that buildSetModifTypeSafe(1, 2, "a"); will not compile