Simulating DELETE cascades with WeakHashMaps

Question

I'm developing a service that monitors computers. Computers can be added to or removed from monitoring by a web GUI. I keep reported data basically in various maps like Map<Computer, Temperature>. Now that the collected data grows and the data structures become more sophisticated (including computers referencing each other) I need a concept for what happens when removing computers from monitoring. Basically I need to delete all data reported by the removed computer. The most KISS-like approach would be removing the data manually from memory, like

public void onRemove(Computer computer) {
    temperatures.remove(computer);
    // ...
}

This method had to be changed whenever I add features :-( I know Java has a WeakHashMap, so I could store reported data like so:

 Map<Computer, Temperature> temperatures = new WeakHashMap<>();

I could call System.gc() whenever a computer is removed from monitoring in order have all associated data eagerly removed from these maps.

While the first approach seems a bit like primitive MyISAM tables, the second one resembles DELETE cascades in InnoDB tables. But still it feels a bit uncomfortable and is probably the wrong approach. Could you point out advantages or disadvantages of WeakHashMaps or propose other solutions to this problem?

Answer 1

Not sure if it is possible for your case, but couldn't your Computer class have all the attributes, and then have a list of monitoredComputers (or have a wrapper class called MonitoredComputers, where you can wrap any logic needed like getTemperatures()). By that they can be removed from that list and don't have to look through all attribute lists. If the computer is referenced from another computer then you have to loop through that list and remove references from those who have it.

Answer 2

I'm not sure using a WeakHashMap is a good idea. As you say you may reference Computer objects from several places, so you'll need to make sure all references except one go through weak references, and to remove the hard reference when the Computer is deleted. As you have no control over when weak references are deleted, you may not get consistent results.

If you don't want to have to maintain manually the removal, you could have a flag on Computer objects, like isAlive(). Then you store Computers in special subclasses of Maps and Collections that at read time check if the Computer is alive and if not silently remove it. For example, on a Map<Computer, ?>, the get method would check if the computer is alive, and if not will remove it and return null.

Or the subclasses of Maps and Collections could just register themselves to a single computerRemoved() event, and automatically know how to remove the deleted computers, and you wouldn't have to manually code the removal. Just make sure you keep references to Computer only inside your special maps and collections.