I'm trying to build an entity manager in Dart which uses reflection. The idea is that the method getById(String id, String returnClass) calls a method _get[returnClass]ById(String id).
To accomplish this I'm using dart:mirrors and try to determine if my entity manager object has such a method and call it then. Unfortunately the LibraryMirror doesn't contain any functions.
class EntityMgr {
Object getById(String id, String returnClass) {
InstanceMirror result = null;
String methodName = '_get'+returnClass+'ById';
// Check if a method '_get[returnClass]Byid exists and call it with given ID
if(_existsFunction(methodName)) {
Symbol symbol = new Symbol(methodName);
List methodParameters = new List();
methodParameters.add(id);
result = currentMirrorSystem().isolate.rootLibrary.invoke(symbol, methodParameters);
}
return result;
}
Product _getProductById(String id) {
return new Product();
}
bool _existsFunction(String functionName) {
return currentMirrorSystem().isolate.rootLibrary.functions.containsKey(functionName);
}
}
The mirrors library has changed significantly since this response and no longer reflects the api mentioned in this answer
Isolate's are for concurrent programming and you probably don't have any isolates running. Where you want to look is currentMirrorSystem().libraries, or you can use currentMirrorSystem().findLibrary(new Symbol('library_name')).
You need to know the library because a function or class with the same Symbol could me in different libraries but have completely different signatures.
how to invoke class form dart library string or file shows how to get the class mirror from the library and class name.
The ClassMirror contains the methods, the getters and the setters. The methods mirror does not contain the getters or setters.
final Map<Symbol, MethodMirror> methods
final Map<Symbol, MethodMirror> getters
final Map<Symbol, MethodMirror> setters
That being said, you might want to check out the dart serialization at http://api.dartlang.org/docs/bleeding_edge/serialization.html since it might already do exactly what you're trying to do.
Related
I want to pass a object to workflow as input parameter, without creating instance of it, as this object is already filled up with lot of sub-objects, and I want to run lot of rules on that object. I want to use
WorkflowInvoker.Invoker(this); Is this possible in Windows Workflow Foundation 4.0, If so, what should I keep in InArguments as the type?
Thanks In Advance,
Thanks for your input....
Sorry, I think I haven't kept the question correctly, I had a business class used by bank customers, class is like this,
public partial class BankName.DTOS.clsCardDetails : BaseClass
{
public string _mBankStatusCode;
protected override string IsCreditCard(HttpContext ctx)
{
Status = ctx.Request.Form["Trans_Status"];
_mBankStatusCode = Status.ToString();
}
}
Now, I have to pass this class object to workflow foundation, I should not create new instance of this class in workflow again. Because in workflow, I want to get the status, so ideally what I thought of passing to workflow is object of "BankName.DTOS.clsCardDetails". That is my question.
InArguments<> to workflow is object of BankName.DTOS.clsCardDetails
Arguments passed into a workflow need to be put into a dictionary and the dictionary is passed into the workflow.
var dictionary = new Dictionary<string, object> { { "BankName", _bankNameObject } };
WorkflowInvoker.Invoke(this, dictionary);
The key must have the same name as your InArgument and your object must have the same type as your InArgument.
You can pass as many arguments as you like into the workflow via the dictionary.
See http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rjacobs/archive/2011/05/26/passing-arguments-to-workflow-activities-again.aspx
I am storing a hash-map in a riak bucket like this:
bucket.store(key, docHashMap).execute();
I would like to store the object with a secondary index.
How would I accomplish this? I am aware that the IRiakObject has a addIndex method, but how do I access the IRiakObject before it is stored?
I would think that what I am trying to do is the expected use-case, yet I am not able to find any documentation or examples on this. If you can point me to one that would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Update:
#Brian Roach answered this on the Riak mailing list and below. Here is the custom class that I wrote that extends the HashMap:
class DocMap extends HashMap<String, Object> {
/**
* Generated id
*/
private static final long serialVersionUID = 5807773481499313384L;
#RiakIndex(name="status") private String status;
public String getStatus() {
return status;
}
public void setStatus(String status) {
this.status = status;
}
}
I can still use the object as an ordinary hashmap and store keys and values, but it will also write "status" to a secondary index (and actually end up being called "status_bin" since it's a string.
If you're just passing in an instance of the core Java HashMap ... you can't.
The way the default JSONConverter works for metadata (such as indexes)
is via annotations.
The object being passed in needs to have a field annotated with
#RiakIndex("index_name"). That field can be a Long/Set<Long> or
String/Set<String> (for _int and _bin indexes respectively).
These are not converted to JSON so they won't affect your serialized
data. You can have multiple fields for multiple indexes.
You don't have to append "_int" or "_bin" to the index name in the
annotation - it's done automatically based on the type.
Easiest thing to do woud be to extend HashMap and simply add the
annotated field(s).
I have a member class that returned IQueryable from a data context
public static IQueryable<TB_Country> GetCountriesQ()
{
IQueryable<TB_Country> country;
Bn_Master_DataDataContext db = new Bn_Master_DataDataContext();
country = db.TB_Countries
.OrderBy(o => o.CountryName);
return country;
}
As you can see I don't delete the data context after usage. Because if I delete it, the code that call this method cannot use the IQueryable (perhaps because of deferred execution?). How to force immediate execution to this method? So I can dispose the data context..
Thank you :D
The example given by Codeka is correct, and I would advice writing your code with this when the method is called by the presentation layer. However, disposing DataContext classes is a bit tricky, so I like to add something about this.
The domain objects generated by LINQ to SQL (in your case the TB_Countries class) often contain a reference to the DataContext class. This internal reference is needed for lazy loading. When you access for instance list of referenced objects (say for instance: TB_Country.States) LINQ to SQL will query the database for you. This will also happen with lazy loaded columns.
When you dispose the DataContext, you prevent it from being used again. Therefore, when you return a set of objects as you've done in your example, it is impossible to call the States property on a TB_Country instance, because it will throw a ObjectDisposedException.
This does not mean that you shouldn't dispose the DataContext, because I believe you should. How you should solve this depends a bit on the architecture you choose, but IMO you basically got two options:
Option 1. Supply a DataContext to the GetCountriesQ method.
You normally want to do this when your method is an internal method in your business layer and it is part of a bigger (business) transaction. When you supply a DataContext from the outside, it is created outside of the scope of the method and it shouldn't dispose it. You can dispose it at a higher layer. In that situation your method basically looks like this:
public static IQueryable<TB_Country> GetCountriesQ(
Bn_Master_DataDataContext db)
{
return db.TB_Countries.OrderBy(o => o.CountryName);
}
Option 2. Don't return any domain objects from the GetCountriesQ method.
This solution is useful when the method is a public in your business layer and will be called by the presentation layer. You can wrap the data in a specially crafted object (a DTO) that contains only data and no hidden references to the DataContext. This way you have full control over the communication with the database and you can dispose the DataContext as you should. I've written more about his on SO here. In that situation your method basically looks like this:
public static CountryDTO[] GetCountriesQ()
{
using (var db = new Bn_Master_DataDataContext())
{
var countries;
from country in db.TB_Countries
orderby country.CountryName
select new CountryDTO()
{
Name = country.CountryName,
States = (
from state in country.States
order by state.Name
select state.Name).ToList();
};
return countries.ToArray();
}
}
public class CountryDTO
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<StateDTO> States { get; set; }
}
As you will read here there are some smart things you can do that make using DTOs less painful.
I hope this helps.
You can convert the queryable to a list, like so:
public static List<TB_Country> GetCountriesQ()
{
using(var db = new Bn_Master_DataDataContext())
{
return db.TB_Countries
.OrderBy(o => o.CountryName).ToList();
}
}
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 am just learning actionscript, so come across the problem
In my application I often call to different web services, and because I don't want to hardcode urls to them in my code, I am passing urls to the services as flashvars.
Currently I am doing it this way:
public var siteUrl:String;
public var gameId:String;
public function main():void
{
siteUrl = Application.application.parameters.siteurl;
gameId = Application.application.parameters.gameid;
Where main is a function, which is called on application's creation complete event.
This way I can call both variables from main file of the application but I want to access them from other files. (other as classes)
So is there a way to create class with constants and init values there with flashvars so I can use them everywhere (after importing of course)
The parameters are just stored in that Application.application.parameters object, and that's static. There's no reason you couldn't access that from other classes in your code.
If you want to write a class that wraps the parameters (maybe validates them or something) you could do that fairly easily. You can use a for each loop to loop over all the parameters. Something like:
var params:Object = Application.application.parameters
for(var name:String in params) {
var value:String = params[name] as String;
/* do something with the param */
}
If you want your class to actually verify things then it could just check for each parameter it expects and store it in a local variable.
It really just depends on your own preferences. Some people are fine with accessing the parameters object when they need it. Some people like having the extra code-completion by having a config class that actually defines all the expected config variables.
Update in response to comment:
Instead of having one module declare the variable and have other modules have to depend on that one to access the property it would be cleaner to have a single config module that everything that needs it would all use.
You could use a static class or singleton or some IoC stuff. Just for simplicity I'll show you a way you can do it with a static class.
class MyConfig {
private static var _infoService:String;
private static var _someOtherParam:int;
public static function get infoService():String { return _infoService; }
public static function get someOtherParam():int { return _someOtherParam; }
public static function initParams():Void {
var params:Object = Application.application.parameters;
_infoService = params.infoservice;
// just assuming you have a method to convert here. don't remember the
// code off the top of my head
_someOtherParam = convertToInt(params.someOtherParam);
}
}
Make sure when your app initializes it calls MyConfig.initParams(). You can have that method actually validate that it gets everything it expects and throw exceptions (or return an error) if there's a failure if you want.
Then wherever you need to use that config within your code you just import your config class and access the param. So getting infoService would just be:
var infoService:String = MyConfig.infoService;
Personally I wouldn't use a static class, but it was the easiest to show.