Basically can an observer object's key be rename in JSViews?
This is related to stack question and my updated JSFiddle example,
in which I rename files where the file name is the object property as well as the key.
My real world example is actually using an onBeforeChange helper to perform the rename which is provided the arguments: oldValue & value.
Then I use the oldValue to navigate through the observer object to rename. But, because I don't rename the object key as well further renames will fail because the oldValue is now out of sync.
I hope that explanation plus the above fiddle makes sense... :s
Thanks for you consideration!
You can achieve something close to that by calling:
$.observable(object).setProperty("newKey", object.key);
$.observable(object).setProperty("key", undefined);
That will leave a property object.key with the value undefined, but will not actually remove the property.
If you want you can then call
delete object.key;
There will probably be a new $(object).removeProperty("someKey") in an upcoming update - which will allow you to write:
$.observable(object).setProperty("newKey", object.key);
$.observable(object).removeProperty("key");
UPDATE
You can now use removeProperty:
$.observable(object).removeProperty("key");
Related
I'm learning about reactive programming in Meteor:
https://stephenwalther.com/archive/2014/12/05/dont-do-react-understanding-meteor-reactive-programming
I believe that the idea behind Session.equals(key, value) is to remember an association between the reactive variable and the desired value so that updates only propagate to the surrounding code if the equality changes. That way if we have hundreds of views that depend on the variable, only the old and new views get their update code triggered when the value changes.
Note that this would not be the case if we called Session.get(key) === value because every view's code would be called when the variable changes. This is discussed further under the Session.get versus Session.equals() section of the article.
But I found an inconsistency under the Using Reactive Variables section where it says:
Notice that a reactive variable, unlike the Session object, does not have an equals() method. Yes, that is a shame.
So reactive-var is missing equals() but reactive-dict has ReactiveDict.equals().
I can't really see a conceptual reason to exclude ReactiveVar.equals(). Maybe they had no context for storing the association, or maybe there is some scoping or other issue with Javascript that prevents this that I don't fully understand.
So my question is: is this a bug?
Should I just always use reactive-dict? In which case I would change everything from:
let myReactiveVar = new ReactiveVar();
...
if(myReactiveVar.get() === 'myValue')
To the more verbose (but performant):
let myReactiveDict = new ReactiveDict();
...
if(myReactiveDict.equals('myReactiveVar', 'myValue'))
Which would match the functionality provided by Session.equals().
Another option would be to extend the ReactiveVar prototype with my own equals() method or inherit it in a child class and provide a MyReactiveVar.equals() method. Kudos if someone can provide examples to do either of these workarounds that we could submit as a pull request to the Meteor maintainers.
Update: I forgot to mention that ReactiveVar does take an equalsFunc optional parameter in its constructor. It might be possible to hack that as a reactive code block to partially implement equals() functionality without extending the class. Also, here is a related issue on GitHub.
Update: to save time, here is the relevant source code for ReactiveVar and ReactiveDict.equals(). I believe that the value parameter gets converted to serializedValue and is then added as a dependency in ReactiveDict, but I still don't see why it wouldn't be possible to do something similar for ReactiveVar.
The reason there's no equals method for ReactiveVar is because set only invalidates the computations is the new value differs from the current value.
Sets the current value of the ReactiveVar, invalidating the Computations that called get if newValue is different from the old value.
const example = new ReactiveVar(0);
Tracker.autorun(() => {
console.log(example.get());
});
example.set(1); // logs 1
example.set(0); // logs 0
example.set(0); // doesn't log
This is similar behaviour to ReactiveDict's equals method.
Note that set on ReactiveDict does not behave this way. Calling set broadcasts that the value has changed. If you want to prevent the computation from invalidating, that is when you would use equals.
Set a value for a key in the ReactiveDict. Notify any listeners that the value has changed (eg: redraw templates, and rerun any Tracker.autorun computations, that called ReactiveDict.get on this key.)
I'm doing the newbie tutorial 'simple-todo' and noticed that once I added security in step 9, I was no longer able to delete tasks created before that.
The issue is that my remove method is checking to make sure that the ID it receives is a string, and the to-do tasks that were made earlier via the console return an object when I use this_.id.
In other words:
Tasks created via the terminal, this._id -> ObjectId("57a128afbe5fd7e7ba9a6fca")
Tasks created with the Tasks.insert method, this._id -> "57a128afbe5fd7e7ba9a6fca"
And the new remove method doesn't like the ObjectId part. How can I get just the ID? I would figure it'd be something like this._id._id, but that's undefined. The workaround was to remove the check from the "remove" method, which is less secure.
Link: https://www.meteor.com/tutorials/blaze/security-with-methods
You can use this._id._str to get the Hex part of the ObjectId.
I would suggest that your method only uses the string, and do a check in the client to see if you need to use this._id or this._id._str
Simple question:
Will all obersvers automatically removed when I use goOffline (disconnect to firebase) ?
If not, is there another way to do it, because removeAllOberserves doesn't seem to work or must I keep an array of single handles?
UPDATE
I answer myself.
removeAllOberserves works well, if you call it with the reference you used to set the observer!
Example:
Firebase *userThreadRef;
userThreadRef = [userRef appendPathComponent: ThreadsPath];
[userThreadRef observeEventType: FEventTypeChildAdded withBlock: ^(FDataSnapshot *snapshot) {
...
}];
....
[userThreadRef removeAllObservers];
Do not use a new reference like this:
Firebase *newUserThreadRef = [userRef appendPathComponent: ThreadsPath];
[newUserThreadRef removeAllObservers];
Will all observers automatically removed when I use goOffline (disconnect to firebase) ?
No. Calling goOffline() will not automatically remove observers/listeners.
is there another way to do it, because removeAllOberserves doesn't seem to work or must I keep an array of single handles?
It's hard to say without seeing your code, but likely your expectations are just wrong.
You'll need to call removeAllObservers() on each reference. The All in the method name is for the fact that it removes the observers for all event types, not for all references.
I was wondering how to bind values where the source of the bind could be null.
I have a property:
private ObjectProperty<Operation> operation = new SimpleObjectProperty<>(null);
I also have a text field:
#FXML
private Text txtCurrentOperation;
I would like to bind the textProperty of the field to the value of the operation object.
My first thought was to use FluentAPI with its when/then/otherwise construct, but it is eagerly evaluated so the solution:
Bindings.when(operation.isNotNull())
.then("null")
.otherwise(operation.get().getName()));
will throw a NPE, because the parameter of otherwise is evaluated no matter what the result of the when.
My next idea was to use lambda somehow:
txtCurrentOperation.textProperty().bind(() ->
new SimpleStringProperty(
operation.isNotNull().get() ? "Null" : operation.get().getName()
));
But the bind has no lambda enabled solution. (Later I realized that it couldn't have, becasue the real work goes backward: the change of the binded object (operation) will trigger the update of the binder (the field text property).)
Some articles I found suggested to use an "extremal" value for the property instead of null. But Operation is a complex and heavy weight component so it is not trivial to construct an artifical instance to represent null. Even more, this seems to me boilercode, something the binding mechanism is designed to help eliminating.
My next try was to logically swap the binding direction and add listener to the operation property and let it update the field programatically. It works and rather simple as long as the need of update only depends the operation object instances:
operation.addListener((e) -> {
txtCurrentOperation.setText(operation.isNull().get() ?
"Null" : operation.get().getName());
});
operation.set(oper);
It is relatively simple, but doesn't work: it throws "A bound value cannot be set." exception and I don't see why is the text property of the control regarded as bound.
I ran out of ideas. After much searching, I still cannot solve the simple problem to update a text field differently based on whether the source is null or not.
This seems so simple and everyday problem, that I am sure I missed the solution.
If a 3rd party library is an option, check out EasyBind. Try something like this:
EasyBind.select(operation)
.selectObject(Operation::nameProperty)
.orElse("null");
There's also a JavaFX JIRA issue for the type of functionality provided by EasyBind. If you don't want to use a 3rd party library, try Bindings.select:
Bindings.when(operation.isNotNull())
.then("null")
.otherwise(Bindings.select(operation, "name"));
Be aware the null checking in Bindings.select isn't super efficient. There's a JIRA issue for it.
Just in case if somebody using not Java itself but Kotlin.
It is a good idea to use wonderful tornadofx library.
There you can just use operation.select{it.name}. Although, this feature seems not to be documented yet, so it took some time to discover it.
Sometimes, we need to update one field of entry.value.
the thread safe way to do that is construct a new entry.value and
use put method to update. that is said, I need to make deep copy
of original value even though I just do some little modification.
Can I do this update like
map[key].field = fieldValue;
Hash map returns an entry safely, but assignment of a field is out of scope of the map. So, you should do something here for thread safety. Your code is equivalent to:
Entry entry = map[key];
entry.field = fieldValue;
Obviously the field assignment operator doesn't know anything about the map.
Maybe a lock for the entry itself is needed. If it is just an assignment, then volatile.