CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javaclass-designimmutability
Frederik
Frederik

Reputation: 14556

How do I manipulate a tree of immutable objects?

I'm building an entire application out of immutable objects so that multi-threading and undo become easier to implement. I'm using the Google Collections Library which provides immutable versions of Map, List, and Set.

My application model looks like a tree:

An object graph might look like this:

Scene
 |
 +-- Node
      |
      +-- Node 
           |
           +- Port
      +-- Node
           |
           +- Port
           +- Port

If all of these objects are immutable, controlled by a top-level SceneController object:

And more generally:

Upvotes: 13

Views: 3374

Answers (2)

Daniel C. Sobral
Daniel C. Sobral

Reputation: 297265

There are two concepts of interest here. First, persistent data structures. If all elements of the tree are immutable, then one can derive a new tree from the original tree by replacing some parts, but referring to the older parts, thus saving time and memory.

For example, if you were to add a third Port to the Node that has two ports already, you'd have to create a new Scene, a new Scene's Node's descendant, and the Node that you are changing. The other Node and all of the Ports do not need to be created anew -- you just refer to them in the new Scene/Nodes.

The other concept is that of a Zipper. A zipper is a way to "navigate" through a persistent data structure to optimize local changes. For instance, if you added four new Ports instead of just one, but you added each Port one at a time, you'd have to create four new Scenes, and eight new Nodes. With a zipper, you defer such creations until you are done, saving up on those intermediary objects.

The best explanation I ever read about zipper is here.

Now, use of a zipper to navigate a data structure remove the need to have back-links. You can have back-links in an immutable structure, by clever use of recursive constructors. However, such a data structure would not be persistent. Non-persistent immutable data structures have lousy modification performance, because you need to copy the whole data each time.

As for academic literature, I recommend Purely Function Data Structures, by Okasaki (dissertation PDF, fully fledged book).

Upvotes: 12

Pyrolistical
Pyrolistical

Reputation: 28036

If your tree is immutable, then if you want to change it in anyway you have to produce a new tree.

This sounds bad, but its not if all your nodes are also immutable! Since you don't need to make copies of immutable objects, your new tree will mostly refer to the old tree except for the changes you made.

You'll have to design your tree in such a way that each immutable tree refers to other immutable trees. This way you won't need to reproduce the entire immutable tree either.

But if you go the immutable tree route, then you can't have back links. Otherwise you can't reuse sub trees.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions