I want to make a loop in my ISML Template without an iterable object. During the runtime of this template the condition or rather the number of iterations would be defined. Is there any possibility to have a loop statemant like in java "for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)" but without complex java code?
There is no truly elegant way, I believe. That's because such calculations do not belong to the view layer. That's true not only for ISML but for other template engines, e.g. Thymeleaf. See here.
ISLOOP requires one of the following standard java instances in iterator:
java.util.Enumeration
java.util.Iterator
java.util.Collection
E.g.:
<isloop iterator="products" alias="product" counter="c">
</isloop>
The control flow within the loop may be changed with isbreak and isnext:
<isloop
iterator = "{ISML variable identifier}"
[ alias = "{simple name}" ]
[ counter = "{counter name}" ]
>
... some HTML and ISML code ...
[<isnext>]
[<isbreak>]
</isloop>
If you really need that you may create, for example, your own iterator as simple as this and put it in the pipeline dictionary from a pipeline or an ISML module:
class MyIterator implements Iterator<Integer>
{
private final int max;
private int current;
MyIterator(int max)
{
this.max = max;
}
#Override
public boolean hasNext()
{
return current < max;
}
#Override
public Integer next()
{
return current++;
}
}
You may also use plain JSP scriptlet embedded in the ISML, ISML module etc. If you need a more specific answer please provide more context in your question.
Related
In Class Site, I have two utility methods.
The first one, parseStub, parses a Site into a Master if no errors occur; otherwise, it returns null. Using Optional:
public static Optional<Master> parseStub(Site site) {
// do some parse work; return Optional.empty() if the parse fails.
}
The second method parseStubs is to parse a list of Site into a list of Master. It reuses parseStub, and has to handle the possibly empty Optional<Master>:
public static List<Master> parseStubs(List<Site> sites) {
return sites.stream()
.<Master>map(site -> Site.parseStub(site).orElse(null))
.filter(Objects::nonNull)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
Note that in the code above, I introduced null again.
How could I avoid null (and filter(Objects::nonNull)) using Optional consistently?
Here's one way:
return sites.stream()
.map(Site::parseStub)
.filter(Optional::isPresent)
.map(Optional::get)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
Let's say I have a class like so:
class Gerbil{
int id;
float x,y,z;
}
Let's further say this is part of a real-time simulation where I have a server/client setup and I change a property on the server-side:
//...
gerbil.x = 9.0;
//...
Now I want to send over this change to the client to synchronize the world state. However, the problem is I have potentially vast amounts of gerbils, and these gerbils also potentially have long lists of properties—not just x,y,z as depicted here.
My question is: Is there a way we can intercept these property assignments, transparently, and compile a diff from them?
From reading the D reference I got the impression opAssign might be the right thing, only there's actually no examples of how to use it? (D Ref. / opAssign) I suppose it would look something like this, but I'm just shooting from the hip:
void opAssign(string name)(float val){ //Just guessing here
if(name in floatProps){
if(isServer){
changedProps.push(this.id, name, val);
}
floatProps[name] = val;
}
}
And then opAssign would be called when we do:
gerbil.x = 9.0; //Same as gerbil.opAssign!("x")(9.0) ??
Apart from possibly wrong syntax, is this a step in the right direction? What is the right syntax? What about performance? It looks like it could be quite slow? Is there a faster, more "direct" way of this?
What I'd really like to avoid here are elaborate setups like:
gerbil.incProp(Prop.X, 9.0);
Thanks for your time.
Building on Jonathan's answer, I use code like this in a number of my libraries:
public template property(string name, T) {
mixin(`protected T _`~name~`;` ~
propertyGetter!(name, T) ~ propertySetter!(name, T));
}
public template property(string name, T, T def)
{
mixin(`protected T _`~name~` = `~def.stringof~`;` ~
propertyGetter!(name, T) ~ propertySetter!(name, T));
}
template propertyGetter(string name, T) {
enum propertyGetter = `public T `~name~`(){ return _`~name~`; }`;
}
template propertySetter(string name, T) {
enum propertySetter = `public typeof(this) `~name~`(T value){ _`~name~` = value;`~
`/* notify somebody that I've changed here */`~
`return this; }`;
}
The mixin strings are a bit ugly, but they preserve the proper line count.
I add properties to my classes like this:
class Gerbil {
mixin property!("id", int);
mixin property!("x", float);
mixin property!("y", float, 11.0); // give this one a default value
}
If you wanted, you could add some code to the propertySetter template that notified some sort of monitor that it had changed (passing id, property name, and new value). Then the monitor could transmit this info to a corresponding monitor on the server side who would find the object with proper id and set the specified property to the new value.
Overloading opAssign() is like overloading the assignment operator in C++. It's for assigning to the object itself, not one of its members. It's really not going to do what you want. I believe that the closest that you're going to get is properties:
class Gerbil
{
public:
#property int id()
{
return _id;
}
#property id(int newID)
{
//... Do whatever interception you want.
_id = newID;
}
#property float x()
{
return _x;
}
#property x(float newX)
{
//... Do whatever interception you want.
_x = newX;
}
#property float y()
{
return _y;
}
#property y(float newY)
{
//... Do whatever interception you want.
_y = newY;
}
#property float z()
{
return _z;
}
#property z(float newZ)
{
//... Do whatever interception zou want.
_z = newZ;
}
private:
int _id;
float _x, _y, _z;
}
#property enables property syntax so that you can use the function as if it were a variable. So,
//...
auto copyOfGerbilX = gerbil.x; //translates to gerbil.x()
gerbil.x = 9.0; //translates to gerbile.x(9.0)
//...
is now legal even though x is a function rather than a variable. You can insert whatever special handling code you want in the functions. And because the syntax used to access the variables is just as if they were public member variables, you can freely refactor your code to switch between having them be properties or public member variables in your class definition (assuming that you haven't tried to do something like take their address, since that doesn't mean the same thing for a variable as a function).
However, if what you're looking for is a generic way to not have to do all of those functions yourself, there is no direct construct for it. I believe that you could do it with compile-time reflection and string mixins or template mixins which would look at the list of your variables and then generate each of the property functions for you. However, then the extra handling code would have to be essentially the same for each function, and you'd have to be careful that the generated code was really what you wanted. I'm sure that it's feasible, but I'd have to work on the problem for a bit to produce a workable solution.
To generate such code, you'd need to look at __traits and std.traits for the compile-time reflection and at template mixins and string mixins for the code generation. I'd think twice about generating the code like that though rather than writing it by hand. It should be quite doable, but it won't necessarily be easy, debugging it could be entertaining, and if you're going to have to be fairly good with D templates and mixins to get it right.
But essentially, what you're looking for is to use #property functions so that you can add your handler code and then possibly use compile-time reflection along with mixins to generate the code for you, but generating code like that is a fairly advanced technique, so you may want to wait to try that until you're more experienced with D.
Pardon me if this question has already been asked. HttpContext.Current.Session["key"] returns an object and we would have to cast it to that particular Type before we could use it. I was looking at various implementations of typed sessions
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/typedsessionstate.aspx
http://weblogs.asp.net/cstewart/archive/2008/01/09/strongly-typed-session-in-asp-net.aspx
http://geekswithblogs.net/dlussier/archive/2007/12/24/117961.aspx
and I felt that we needed to add some more code (correct me if I was wrong) to the SessionManager if we wanted to add a new Type of object into session, either as a method or as a separate wrapper. I thought we could use generics
public static class SessionManager<T> where T:class
{
public void SetSession(string key,object objToStore)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[key] = objToStore;
}
public T GetSession(string key)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[key] as T;
}
}
Is there any inherent advantage in
using
SessionManager<ClassType>.GetSession("sessionString")
than using
HttpContext.Current.Session["sessionString"] as ClassType
I was also thinking it would be nice
to have something like
SessionManager["sessionString"] = objToStoreInSession,
but found that a static class cannot have an indexer. Is there any other way to achieve this ?
My thought was create a SessionObject which would store the Type and the object, then add this object to Session (using a SessionManager), with the key. When retrieving, cast all objects to SessionObject ,get the type (say t) and the Object (say obj) and cast obj as t and return it.
public class SessionObject { public Type type {get;set;} public Object obj{get;set;} }
this would not work as well (as the return signature would be the same, but the return types will be different).
Is there any other elegant way of saving/retrieving objects in session in a more type safe way
For a very clean, maintainable, and slick way of dealing with Session, look at this post. You'll be surprised how simple it can be.
A downside of the technique is that consuming code needs to be aware of what keys to use for storage and retrieval. This can be error prone, as the key needs to be exactly correct, or else you risk storing in the wrong place, or getting a null value back.
I actually use the strong-typed variation, since I know what I need to have in the session, and can thus set up the wrapping class to suit. I've rather have the extra code in the session class, and not have to worry about the key strings anywhere else.
You can simply use a singleton pattern for your session object. That way you can model your entire session from a single composite structure object. This post refers to what I'm talking about and discusses the Session object as a weakly typed object: http://allthingscs.blogspot.com/2011/03/documenting-software-architectural.html
Actually, if you were looking to type objects, place the type at the method level like:
public T GetValue<T>(string sessionKey)
{
}
Class level is more if you have the same object in session, but session can expand to multiple types. I don't know that I would worry about controlling the session; I would just let it do what it's done for a while, and simply provide a means to extract and save information in a more strongly-typed fashion (at least to the consumer).
Yes, indexes wouldn't work; you could create it as an instance instead, and make it static by:
public class SessionManager
{
private static SessionManager _instance = null;
public static SessionManager Create()
{
if (_instance != null)
return _instance;
//Should use a lock when creating the instance
//create object for _instance
return _instance;
}
public object this[string key] { get { .. } }
}
And so this is the static factory implementation, but it also maintains a single point of contact via a static reference to the session manager class internally. Each method in sessionmanager could wrap the existing ASP.NET session, or use your own internal storage.
I posted a solution on the StackOverflow question is it a good idea to create an enum for the key names of session values?
I think it is really slick and contains very little code to make it happen. It needs .NET 4.5 to be the slickest, but is still possible with older versions.
It allows:
int myInt = SessionVars.MyInt;
SessionVars.MyInt = 3;
to work exactly like:
int myInt = (int)Session["MyInt"];
Session["MyInt"] = 3;
I'm using Python+PyAMF to talk back and forth with Flex clients, but I've run into a problem with the psudo-Enum-Singletons I'm using:
class Type {
public static const EMPTY:Type = new Type("empty");
public static const FULL:Type = new Type("full");
...
}
When I'm using locally created instances, everything is peachy:
if (someInstance.type == Type.EMPTY) { /* do things */ }
But, if 'someInstance' has come from the Python code, it's instance of 'type' obviously won't be either Type.EMPTY or Type.FULL.
So, what's the best way to make my code work?
Is there some way I can control AMF's deserialization, so when it loads a remote Type, the correct transformation will be called? Or should I just bite the bullet and compare Types using something other than ==? Or could I somehow trick the == type cohesion into doing what I want?
Edit: Alternately, does Flex's remoting suite provide any hooks which run after an instance has been deserialized, so I could perform a conversion then?
Random thought: Maybe you could create a member function on Type that will return the canonical version that matches it?
Something like:
class Type {
public static const EMPTY:Type = new Type("empty");
public static const FULL:Type = new Type("full");
...
// I'm assuming this is where that string passed
// in to the constructor goes, and that it's unique.
private var _typeName:String;
public function get canonical():Type {
switch(this._typeName) {
case "empty": return EMPTY;
case "full": return FULL;
/*...*/
}
}
}
As long as you know which values come from python you would just convert them initially:
var fromPython:Type = /*...*/
var t:Type = fromPython.canonical;
then use t after that.
If you can't tell when things come from python and when they're from AS3 then it would get pretty messy, but if you have an isolation layer between the AS and python code you could just make sure you do the conversion there.
It's not as clean as if you could control the deserialization, but as long as you've got a good isolation layer it should work.
I'm trying to create a collection class in Flex that is limited to housing a specific type of data that i am using (an interface). I have chosen not to extend the ArrayCollection class as it's too generic and doesn't really give me the compile time safety that i'm after. In it's simplistic form my collection contains an array and i manage how objects are added and removed, etc.
What i really want to be able to do is use these collections in for each loops. It definitely doesn't seem as straight forward as say c# where you just implement IEnumerable and IEnumerator (or just using the generic Collection). Is there a way to do this in action script and if so any info on how it is achieved?
Cheers
You need to extend the Flash Proxy class. Extending Proxy allows you to alter how 'get' and 'set' work, as well as 'for..in' and 'for..each' loops. You can find more details on the Livedocs.
Here's an example for your issue:
package
{
import flash.utils.Proxy;
import flash.utils.flash_proxy;
public class EnumerableColl extends Proxy
{
private var _coll:Array;
public function EnumerableColl()
{
super();
_coll = [ 'test1', 'test2', 'test3' ];
}
override flash_proxy function nextNameIndex( index:int ):int
{
if ( index >= _coll.length ) return 0;
return index + 1;
}
override flash_proxy function nextValue( index:int ):*
{
return _coll[ index - 1];
}
}
}
Take a look at Vector<>. That is about as best as you can go for a typed collection in Flex (4 onwards). However, you will need to implement your own class otherwise. One way, it seems, is to use the Iterator Pattern.
Also, take a look at this SO post.