I have following class structure -
class Student{
int age;
String name;
}
class Group{
Student allStudents[];
int avgAge;
}
class Handler{
public int myFunction(Group g){
...
do something with 'g'
...
return k;
}
}
I want to invoke the function, 'myFunction' from Javassist using a custom 'Group' object and test the behaviour of the function for this object.
In a different scenario, I'm able to work with functions with parameters of primitive data type as follows-
ctBehavior.insertBefore("{for (int i=0; i < $args.length; i++) {System.out.println($args[i]);}}");
I want to do something like this for parameters that are custom objects.
Javassist lets you code out anything that you could write in Java (v1.4). Additionally, it gives you a few makro commands. If you want to create a group object, depending on its constructor, it would look something like:
"myFunction(new Group((Student[]) $args[0], Integer.valueOf((Integer) $args[1])));"
Note that Javassist does not automatically box or unbox your values. Any value read by $args is boxed and of type Object. This is most likely the problem you are observing.
Related
I have the following scenario (https://run.dlang.io/is/19OOW9):
import std.stdio;
void main(string[] args)
{
inter1 c1 = new foo();
foo c2 = new foo();
writeln("Origin=interface: ", typeof(c1).stringof);
writeln("Origin=class: ", typeof(c2).stringof);
}
interface inter1 {
}
class foo : inter1 {
}
I work with interfaces and have different implementations for them. Now I need to know which concrete implementation is currently being used. So in the example above, I would like to know from c1 that it is an instance of the class foo.
Is this possible in the language D?
I have already tried the possibilities of object (e.g. TypeInfo_Class) and std.traits. Unfortunately without success.
A workaround is, of course, to provide the interface with a suitable meta method (https://run.dlang.io/is/Xnt0TO):
import std.stdio;
void main(string[] args)
{
inter1 c1 = new foo();
foo c2 = new foo();
writeln("Origin=interface: ", c1.strategyName);
writeln("Origin=class: ", c2.strategyName);
}
interface inter1 {
#property string strategyName() const;
}
class foo : inter1 {
#property string strategyName() const {
return "foo";
}
}
However, this is cumbersome and unusual for D. I can well imagine that there is a better implementation of this.
Best regards
Thorsten
It is quite simple actually: first cast to Object, then fetch the typeid, after a null check:
Object o = cast(Object) your_object;
if(o is null) { /* i don't think this ever happens but you should check anyway */ }
writeln(typeid(o)); // will tell the class name
If you want to call a method on a specific class, you can just cast directly to your class, and again, null check it.
The intermediate cast to Object allows the typeid (aka classinfo) to succeed, whereas calling it directly on an interface always returns the typeid of the interface itself. This is because a D interface is defined to be very thin for maximum compatibility with other languages and doesn't automatically assume run time type information is actually present through it. But the cast to Object tells it you are assuming the RTTI is present, and then typeid will pull it.
Note that the typeid data doesn't provide a whole lot of information... it is mostly just what's needed for dynamic cast, comparison, and other features of the language runtime. But one convenience method it has is a class name and toString methods, which is why the writeln succeeds. But if you're looking for more detailed runtime reflection, you'll have to do it with a CT bridge function, or probably better yet, just write your own methods in the interface.
But if all you need is the class name, use that toString. It gives the fully-qualified name, including module name, so instead of foo, you will get like yourmodule.foo. You can just cut that off if you like by slicing at the dot.
How can I convert a hash to and object? Suppose I have the following definition:
class A {
int i;
string s;
}
class B {
int bi;
A a;
}
hash h = (
"bi" : 100,
"A" : ("i" : 10, "s" : "str"));
is there any way how I could convert h to an object of class B?
Is this to be generic? If so, then you'd need a bit more verbose structure. Such that would make it clear that 'A' is to be an object, 'i' is to be an int, etc.
Anyway, there's a built-in function create_object that can be used to create an object as long as the object does not need constructor arguments or you know what they should be. Then you would set all members and that means they need to be public. You could also iterate object's public members and thus check if your hash provides all info.
I'm not aware of a way how to learn more about an object, such as member types, method signatures, etc. Still, you either know the object (so you can provide args to constructor or call a method after creation etc) or it has to be a simple object with no constructor args and public members (as private members cannot be set directly).
My struct class:
public struct PinAndRadius
{
public string pinID { get; set; }
public string radiusID { get; set; }
public string getPinID()
{
return pinID;
}
public string getRadiusID()
{
return radiusID;
}
}
the method with a problem:
void mapArea_VE_PinDragged(double latitude, double longitude, object id)
{
foreach (var pin in pinRadiusCollection)
{
string ID = id.ToString();
//string newID = ID.Substring(0, 18);
if (!pin.Key.pinID.Equals(ID))
{
continue;
}
else if (pin.Key.pinID.Equals(ID))
{
var newLoc = createNewSearchLocation(latitude, longitude);
mapArea.VE_DeleteRadius(pin.Key.radiusID);
drawPoly(newLoc, pin.Value.xar_Radius);
pin.Key.radiusID = pollyID;
break;
}
}
}
The problem is that when I try to set pin.key.radiusID to pollyID, I get an error saying
Cannot modify the return value of 'System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair.Key' because it is not a variable...
Any ideas?
Structure in .net is value-type. This mean you can't get reference to PinAndRadius using pin.Key. You will get copy of pin.Key of type PinAndRadius. Then you haven't access to this copy and compiler tell you about this. In C++ terms it not l-value.
If you create struct always try make it immutable. Mutable structs are evil.
Simplest way to solve this problem is to make PinAndRadius as class.
By the looks of it, your pinRadiusCollection is a generic dictionary keyed by PinAndRadius; the error you're getting is letting you know you can't modify that object because it's being used as the key in your dictionary.
If your pins are supposed to be mutable, you should probably revisit how you're storing them.
Collections in .net are not set up to allow convenient modification of struct-type items contained therein. Despite this, mutable structs still offer cleaner semantics than any other kind of data type. To edit a struct held in a collection, simply copy it to a variable, edit that variable, and store it back:
var temp = myList[someIndex];
temp.SomeVield = whatEver;
myList[someIndex] = temp;
Note that it's generally better to have mutable structs expose their contents as fields than as properties. Some people may say mutable structs are evil because their semantics differ from classes, but that's like saying screwdrivers are evil because they make lousy hammers. Exposed-field structs don't work like class types, but structs where all fields are exposed all have the same semantics as each other. Those semantics differ from classes, but for cases where they're useful, they have no equal.
Incidentally, much of the bad reps "mutable structs" got was a result of the fact that mutating struct members other than exposed fields would often generate bogus code if applied to read-only structures. If you avoid having struct members which modify fields of this [it's perfectly safe for static struct methods to modify fields of structures received as ref parameters], those dangers don't apply.
I simply just changed the struct definition to a class.
I have a "format" method that works in a similar manner to the C# String.Format method, with the following signature:
In a class named StringTools:
/**
* Formats a string, based on C# String.Format method.
* #param raw A string with numbered tokens, such as "{0}, {1}"
* #param rest Values that replace the numbered tokens in raw.
*/
public static function format(raw:String, ...rest:*):String;
StringTools.format("{0}, {1}", "Hello", "World") returns the string "Hello, World" as expected. Now, I'm trying to get my logging class to use this method, but I'm having trouble passing the optional variables through. The signature of the method in the logging class is:
public static function infof(raw:String, ...rest:*):String;
If I pass "rest" directly into StringTools.format(raw, rest), it's passed in as an array, and not as a series of parameters, so if I call it liks this: infof("{0}, {1}", "Hello", "World"), I get the string "Hello,World, {1}", since it replaces the first token with the entire array of values.
I also tried constructing an arguments array, and calling the method like this:
var collectArgs:Array = [raw];
for (var i:Number = 0; i < rest.length; i++)
{
collectArgs.push(rest[i]);
}
var callFunction:Function = StringTools.format.call;
trace(callFunction.apply(null, collectArgs));
However, this traces "World,6". So, it looks like the parameters are shifted. So, I tried initializing collectArgs as [null, raw], and I get "Hello World,6. The number is {1}" again.
Am I doing something wrong? What is the correct way to pass optional parameters from one method that expects optional parameters to another method that expects optional parameters?
Thanks!
I think you are on the right lines using apply. This seems to do illustrate the behaviour you want:
static function f1(raw:String, ...rest:*):void
{
trace("f1: "+raw+" "+rest);
rest.unshift(raw);
f2.apply(null, rest);
}
static function f2(raw:String, ...rest:*):void
{
trace("f2: "+raw+" "+rest);
}
function passSomeArguments():void
{
f1("A",1,2,3);
}
EDIT: You need to pass 'null' as the 1st parameter to apply because the first parameter is what is considered to be 'this' when the function is called. Since the functions are static (and in any case have no dependency on 'this') you can pass null, but you must pass something.
You could also do something like this (of course this is not best implementation for the string formatting):
public static function format(raw:String, ...rest:*):String {
if (rest[0] is Array && rest.length == 1) {
rest = rest[0];
}
var r:RegExp = /(\{\d+\})/g;
var matches:Array = raw.match(r);
for (var i:Number = 0; i < rest.length; i++) {
raw = raw.replace(matches[i], rest[i]);
}
return raw;
}
Then your infof function would just look like this:
public static function infof(raw:String, ...rest:*):void {
var formatted = StringTools.format(raw, rest);
}
As mentioned in my comment, if you remove the call method from the end of you callFunction setter, then you do not need to supply null as the first argument. See http://livedocs.adobe.com/ to understand what the call method actually does, and what the first parameter is for.
As #stephen mentioned, it is a lot simpler to unshift your raw var onto the rest array, rather than building up a new one.
Actually, just found that it's my problem. It should work fine using the argument collection method described, as long as the first element in the arguments array is null. I'm not sure why null is necessary, but it works fine this way.
I need to log all the function parameters in a dozen functions.
Is there a way to pro grammatically determine all the parameters and their values (or at least their .ToString() value)? Perhaps via reflection?
Here is an example of how to do this with PostSharp
http://consultingblogs.emc.com/merrickchaffer/archive/2009/08/04/using-postsharp-to-log-method-entry-and-exit-in-net-code.aspx
You can also roll your own
http://www.developerfusion.com/article/5307/aspect-oriented-programming-using-net/3/
To the best of my knowledge there's no way to use reflection to dynamically list and determine value of local variables. You can use reflection to get type information about the parameters of a method, but only the declared type - you can't automatically get information about the actual arguments, because the reflection metadata gives information about the method definition, not the specific values passed to it at runtime.
You can, however, do something like this:
static class Extensions
{
public static string GetTypeAndValue(this object obj)
{
return String.Format("{0}: {1}", obj.GetType().Name, obj.ToString());
}
}
Then, from within each method in which you want to perform logging, do something like
private void SomeMethodToBeLogged(string some_string, int some_int, bool some_bool)
{
Logger.Log(String.Format("SomeMethodToBeLogged({0}, {1}, {2})",
some_string.GetTypeAndValue(),
some_int.GetTypeAndValue(),
some_bool.GetTypeAndValue()));
}