I have a function like so:
public HousesDTO mapHouses(Set<Home> roles) {
HousesDTO homes = new HousesDTO();
List<HouseDTO> dtos = new ArrayList<HouseDTO>();
for (Home home : homes) {
HouseDTO dto = new HouseDTO(home.getAddress(), home.getPrice());
dtos.add(dto);
}
homes.setAllHomes(dtos);
return homes;
}
return null;
}
How can this be done using Mapstruct?
In case your HouseDTO has a parameterless constructor and setters for the values you can do it like this:
#Mapper
public interface HousesMapper {
default HousesDTO toHouses(Set<Home> homes) {
HousesDTO housesDTO = new HousesDTO();
housesDTO.setAllHomes(toHousesList(homes));
return housesDTO;
}
List<HouseDTO> toHousesList(Set<Home> homes);
}
If the HouseDTO only has a constructor that expects the properties than there are three options left:
Wait for the MapStruct 1.4 release which will support instantiation by constructors
Create a default method where you map from Home to HouseDTO manually
Create a Builder, see https://mapstruct.org/documentation/stable/reference/html/#mapping-with-builders
Related
I'd like to make wrapper to implement simple data binding pattern -- while some data have been modified all registered handlers are got notified. I have started with this (for js target):
class Main {
public static function main() {
var target = new Some();
var binding = new Bindable(target);
binding.one = 5;
// binding.two = 0.12; // intentionally unset field
binding.three = []; // wrong type
binding.four = 'str'; // no such field in wrapped class
trace(binding.one, binding.two, binding.three, binding.four, binding.five);
// outputs: 5, null, [], str, null
trace(target.one, target.two, target.three);
// outputs: 5, null, []
}
}
class Some {
public var one:Int;
public var two:Float;
public var three:Bool;
public function new() {}
}
abstract Bindable<TClass>(TClass) {
public inline function new(source) { this = source; }
#:op(a.b) public function setField<T>(name:String, value:T) {
Reflect.setField(this, name, value);
// TODO notify handlers
return value;
}
#:op(a.b) public function getField<T>(name:String):T {
return cast Reflect.field(this, name);
}
}
So I have some frustrating issues: interface of wrapped object doesn't expose to wrapper, so there's no auto completion or strict type checking, some necessary attributes can be easily omitted or even misspelled.
Is it possible to fix my solution or should I better move to the macros?
I almost suggested here to open an issue regarding this problem. Because some time ago, there was a #:followWithAbstracts meta available for abstracts, which could be (or maybe was?) used to forward fields and call #:op(a.b) at the same time. But that's not really necessary, Haxe is powerful enough already.
abstract Binding<TClass>(TClass) {
public function new(source:TClass) { this = source; }
#:op(a.b) public function setField<T>(name:String, value:T) {
Reflect.setField(this, name, value);
// TODO notify handlers
trace("set: $name -> $value");
return value;
}
#:op(a.b) public function getField<T>(name:String):T {
trace("get: $name");
return cast Reflect.field(this, name);
}
}
#:forward
#:multiType
abstract Bindable<TClass>(TClass) {
public function new(source:TClass);
#:to function to(t:TClass) return new Binding(t);
}
We use here multiType abstract to forward fields, but resolved type is actually regular abstract. In effect, you have completion working and #:op(a.b) called at the same time.
You need #:forward meta on your abstract. However, this will not make auto-completion working unless you remove #:op(A.B) because it shadows forwarded fields.
EDIT: it seems that shadowing happened first time I added #:forward to your abstract, afterwards auto-completion worked just fine.
I am trying to find a way to override a structuremap registry statement containing EnrichWith like so (here is the Registry class):
public class MyRegistry : Registry
{
public MyRegistry()
{
For(typeof(IMyList<int>)).EnrichWith(x => DecorateMyList(x)).Use(typeof(MyListA<int>));
For(typeof(IMyList<int>)).Use(typeof(MyListB<int>));
For<IMyList<string>>().Use<MyListA<string>>();
For<IMyList<string>>().Use<MyListB<string>>();
}
private object DecorateMyList(object o)
{
var genericParameters = o.GetType().GetGenericArguments();
var myListDecoratorType = typeof(MyListDecorator<>).MakeGenericType(genericParameters);
var decorated = Activator.CreateInstance(myListDecoratorType, new []{o});
return decorated;
}
}
public class MyRegistryUser
{
ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IMyList<string>>(); // Good: Returns an instance of MyListB<string> as expected
ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IMyList<int>>(); // Bad: Returns an instance of the decorator containing MyListB<int> - my second rule should have overridden the EnrichWith as well.
}
Am I right to think that there is a glitch in structure map or is there something I'm not seeing?
Thanks in advance
I am new to ASP.NET MVC and I am stuck on a point. I am working on a classified site. My situation is, I have a lot of categories in which a user can post their ads and each ad category have different View. I have created a Controller Action like
public ActionResult PostAd(string CategoryName, string SubCategoryName)
{
if(categoryName == "Vehicle" && SubCategoryName == "Cars")
{
var model = new CarAdViewModel();
// set CarAdViewModel properties...
return View("CarAdCreateView", model);
}
else if(categoryName == "Vehicle" && SubCategoryName == "Bikes")
{
var model = new BikeAdViewModel();
// set BikeAdViewModel properties...
return View("BikeAdViewModel", model);
}
else if(categoryName == "Property" && SubCategoryName == "RentHouse")
{
var model = new RentHouseAdViewModel();
// set RentHouseAdViewModel properties...
return View("RentHouseAdViewModel", model);
}
else................... so on and so on
}
My problem is I have huge number of Categories and Sub Categories almost 60+. And if I keep on coding like above for 60+ categories and subcategories, my PostAd method is going to blast and become unmanageable.
Please tell me some best practice or pattern which can bring me out of this problem.
Unfortunately, some of what you are doing cannot be avoided. There needs to be some form of model and view selection based on category.
Use a factory pattern. Create a base class:
public abstract class BaseCategory
{
public abstract string GetViewName();
public abstract Object CreateModelFromFormData();
}
For each category, create a sub-class derived from BaseCategory and implement the abstract functions.
In your action, do the following:
public ActionResult PostAd(string categoryName, string subCategoryName)
{
BaseFactory factory;
if (categoryName == "Vehicle")
{
if (subCategoryName == "Cars")
{
factory = new CarsFactory();
}
else ...
}
else ...
return View(factory.GetViewName(), factory.CreateModelFromFormData());
}
I have a couple reasons for this schema:
I am purposefully using if/else for the factory selection. Your controller is going to be created and re-created for every action call. So pre-populating a list will constantly and needlessly create objects for categories that will not be selected. A simple if/else will be more efficient. If you want to prevent the if/else, you can put your factories in a Dictionary and select based on the categories, but that would be a lot of needless constructor actions.
I made the CreateModelFromFormData a function because I assume you'll need to copy data from the posted form data. This may require passing in data, but I left the function parameterless.
I used base/derived classes because the copying of the form data will probably need to be custom from the model being created and the form data being posted. Also, saving to persistent storage (file or database) may be category-specific as well.
It would be one of some possible solutions
public class PostAdData
{
public string CategoryName;
public string SubCategoryName;
public string ViewName;
public Type Model;
}
public class PostController : Controller
{
private readonly List<PostAdData> _theData;
public HomeController()
{
_theData = InitializeData();
}
public ActionResult PostAd(string categoryName, string subCategoryName)
{
var data = _theData.FirstOrDefault(c => c.CategoryName == categoryName && c.SubCategoryName == subCategoryName);
if (data != null)
{
var model = Activator.CreateInstance(data.Model);
return View(data.ViewName, model);
}
return View("Error");
}
[NonAction]
public List<PostAdData> InitializeData()
{
var result = new List<PostAdData>
{
new PostAdData
{
CategoryName = "Vehicle",
SubCategoryName = "Cars",
ViewName = "CarAdCreateView",
Model = typeof (CarAdViewModel)
}
};
return result;
}
}
You should make this data driven. You create a lookup table that has a compound primary key of category and subcategory. Then it has a table with View in it. Then you simply ad rows for each category/subcategory/view combination.
If you absolutely don't want a database, then you can use a simple hashset or dictionary.
var views = new Dictionary<Tuple<string,string>,string>();
views.Add(new Tuple<string,string>("Vehicle", "Cars"), "CarAdCreateView");
Then in your PostAd you just lookup the correct view.
What a beautiful solution on www.asp.net to my question, here is the link : http://forums.asp.net/t/1923868.aspx/1?ASP+NET+MVC+Conditional+ViewModel+Abstraction
Edit:
My code is :
public class AdsController : Controller
{
private readonly IAdService _adService;
public AdsController(IAdService adService)
{
_adService = adService;
}
public ActionResult PostAd(string Category, string SubCategory)
{
//Here I will call
var strategy = GetStrategy(CategoryName, SubCategoryName);
strategy.FillModel(_adService );
return View(strategy.ViewName, strategy.Model);
}
}
//Base.as
public class Base
{
private var _foo:String;
[Bindable]
public function set foo(value:String):void
{
_foo = value;
}
public function get foo():String
{
return _foo;
}
/*
Many many setter/getter, methods, events
*/
}
//Control.as
public class MyControl extends Group
{
public function MyControl()
{
}
}
//Window.as
public class MyWindow extends spark.components.Window
{
public function MyWindow()
{
}
}
//Module
public class MyModule extends spark.modules.Module
{
public function MyModule()
{
}
}
I want to expose (friendly) Base properties, methods and events on the other classes. Something like this:
var window:MyWindow = new MyWindow();
window.foo = 'Hello World!';
var module:MyModule = new MyModule();
module.foo = 'bar';
<namespace:MyControl foo="Hello World!"/>
I don't want define all the properties in each class because they are many and the same for all of them.
Ideally would define something like:
public class MyControl extends Group, Base
{
public function MyControl()
{
}
}
(I know it can't be done.)
Thanks!
UPDATE:
Thanks again!
Maybe this clarify more my need... On business layer I have a variable called processID (and businessID, operationID, localityID, etc.) what be passed to Window from Menu, and Window passes it to Module. On Module Container, I have a CustomComponent what query database using this variable as parameter. This applied for all (almost) Components on Module. These variables are defined as level business layer, then I define a Class to store and manage these variables (and some related methods operating with these variables using business logic), so I can make a standalone class (or library) for every environment to reusing my common components. The idea is... insert a new CustomComponent and set these variables via mxml, like this:
<custom:MyCustomComponent id="zzz" processID="{processID}" businessID="{businessID}"/>
Module has the business logic for set (o not) any of the variables.
Otherwise, I would have to implement different logic for the CustomComponent (and Module) for read parent's variables and define these variables only in MyWindow (using composite pattern).
You can get your answer from following link -
http://flexinonroids.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/flex-3-dynamically-loading-components-at-runtime/
http://thecomcor.blogspot.in/2007/11/adobe-flex-dynamically-loading-classes.html
Or you can follow below approach -
1) Create an Interface as base
2) Extend your class with interface
3) Load class at runtime with SWFLoader.loaderContext.applicationDomain.getDefinition method
Thanks,
Varun
You can place your classes that require friendly access in the same package as your Base class, and define private fields without any access modifier( it is equivalent to internal modifier).
Otherwise, you can define your namespace like that:
namespace my_internal;
and then define class members like that:
my_internal var _foo:String;
after that, those members will be hidden for all code, except for code that contains
use namespace my_internal;
You can read more here:
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ActionScript/3.0_ProgrammingAS3/WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7f9e.html#WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7f91
However, using 'friend access' can be an evidence of bad design, so if I were you I'd think twice before defining namespaces.
Update:
pseudo-superclass 1:
package proxy
{
public class Simple1
{
public var x:int;
public var y:int;
}
}
pseudo-superclass 2:
package proxy
{
import mx.controls.Alert;
public class Simple2
{
public var name:String = 'noname';
public function doAlert():void{
Alert.show(name);
}
//not normal method to replace 'this' with proxy
Simple2.prototype.doCrossClass = function doCrossClass():void{
Alert.show(''+(Number(this['x'])+Number(this['y'])));
}
}
}
Code for testing the result (looks as what you are expecting?):
var mega:Mega = new Mega();
mega.x = 100;
mega.y = 200;
mega.name = 'Multiple inheritance';
mega.doAlert();
mega.doCrossClass(); //300
And now pseudo-subclass with multiple inheritance:
package proxy
{
import flash.utils.Proxy;
import flash.utils.flash_proxy;
public dynamic class Mega extends Proxy
{
public function Mega()
{
super();
}
public var superArray:Array = [new Simple1(), new Simple2()];
flash_proxy override function getProperty(name:*):*{
for each(var superClass:Object in superArray){
if( name in superClass){
return superClass[name];
}
}
throw new Error('no such property');
}
flash_proxy override function setProperty(name:*, value:*):void{
for each(var superClass:Object in superArray){
if( name in superClass){
superClass[name] = value;
return;
}
}
throw new Error('no such property');
}
flash_proxy override function callProperty(name:*, ...args):*{
for each(var superClass:Object in superArray){
if( name in superClass){
var f:Function = superClass[name] as Function;
return f.apply(this, args);
}
}
throw new Error('no such function');
}
}
}
You can also want to use javascript-like class construction(i.e. just using simple Object and assigning properties and functions to it in any combinations you want).
I have code like this:
//Fields
Product _prod, _existingProd;
void Test()
{
_prod = MakeAndPopulateSomeRandomProduct();
_existingProd = GetProdFromDb(1);
Mapper.CreateMap()
.AfterMap((s, d) =>
{
Console.WriteLine(d==_existingProd); //Why does this print false?
//Customize other properties on destination object
});
Mapper.Map(_prod, _existingProd);
}
When I call Test(), false is printed but I expected true. In my scenario, it is important to be able to access the original destination object via the AfterMap argument. I only included the fields to demonstrate the problem but in my real code, I don't have direct access to them. How can I access the object instances passed in to Map() when customizing the mapping?
The following example works. Probably you are using some type converter which creates new instance... Also please provide all mapping configurations to better understand the problem.
[TestFixture]
public class AfterMap_Test
{
//Fields
private Product _prod, _existingProd;
[Test]
public void Test()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<Product, Product>()
.AfterMap((s, d) =>
{
Trace.WriteLine(d == _existingProd); //Why does this print false?
//Customize other properties on destination object
});
_existingProd = new Product {P1 = "Destination"};
_prod = new Product {P1 = "Source"};
Mapper.Map(_prod, _existingProd);
}
}
internal class Product
{
public string P1 { get; set; }
}