This is a simple questions. I have researched this questions in my notebooks and books and the internet but cant find an answer
Why would we override the default constructor by adding parameters to it?
You would create a constructor for a class to manipulate its member variables according to whatever other conditions as soon as it's created. I get the impression you don't actually know what a constructor is.
Many languages (like C++/C#/Java) automatically create default no-arguments constructor when none defined in the class explicitly.
When you create a constructor in a class with or without arguments usually compiler stop creating default auto-generated constructor (depending on language specification). This is done on assumption if you have some non default initialization than automatically generated one is likely to not create object in a state you would expect.
Since having constructor with arguments is natural way to create objects it is essentially lead to "removing" default auto-generated constructor which probably can be called "overriding default constructor".
Related
#WebInitParam is an annotation that goes at class level.
It defines initialization parameters for the servlet.
I would like to know, what is the difference between doing this and using static variables, and why do it the #WebInitParam way rather than using statics?
What does defining k/v pairs as #WebInitParams allow you to do that you couldn't do if you declared static variables instead?
I have looked and all I can find is a million people saying how to define #WebInitParams. Well yes that's the easy bit. It's what I can do with that that is really what is of interest.
Thanks very much.
From a "raison d'etre" perspective, the annotation exists as a better design and architecture alternative to just peppering a class with static fields. #WebInitParam is a self-documenting approach to the initialization parameters a servlet or filter class needs, available via web.xml as well. It serves this purpose for the end developers as well as the JavaEE platform as a whole.
Think about it this way: in a vanilla project, you have the option of hardcoding a bunch of parameters in the class as static fields, or defining the same parameters in a property file. Which would you pick? Under what circumstances?
From a purely functional angle, apart from the function of using the annotation to override defaults set in web.xml, one other major reason is that you will sometimes need to get a hold of those initialization parameters from another component in your application. Using the annotation essentially increases the visibility of the parameter. In JSF for example, the API allows you to retrieve FacesServlet initialization parameters with:
//get all the parameters
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getInitParameterMap()
//get a specific parameter
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getInitParameter("aParameter");
In JSF-2.3 , it gets even more convenient with the following CDI-enabled injection:
#InitParameterMap Map<String,String> servletParameterMap;
Bear in mind that because it's CDI, it means this facility is available throughout the JavaEE platform, not just in web applications/JSF.
It's going to be a hassle to retrieve init parameters if the only mechanism available is a static field in the servlet class - you'll need to obtain an instance of the filter or servlet to get the static fields in it.
Separately, one could make the argument that maybe one should favour context-params over servlet-params because then, you get even more flexibility that isn't tied to any given servlet. That's a separate matter entirely :)
I am trying to make a replacement VB6 class for the Scripting.Dictionary class from SCRRUN.DLL. Scripting.Dictionary has (among other things) a "Keys" method that returns an array of keys, and a read/write "Item" property that returns the item associated with a key. I am confused about this, because both of them seem to be defaults for the class. That is:
For Each X In MyDict
Is equivalent to:
For Each X In MyDict.Keys
Which to me implies that "Keys" is the default operation for the class, but:
MyDict("MyKey") = "MyValue"
MsgBox MyDict("MyKey")
Is equivalent to:
MyDict.Item("MyKey") = "MyValue"
MsgBox MyDict.Item("MyKey")
Which to me implies that "Item" is the default operation for the class.
I've never before created a VB6 class that had a default operation, so upon realizing this, I thought perhaps I could define multiple default operations as long as they all have different signatures, which they do: Keys is nullary, the Item getter takes a Variant, and the Item setter takes two Variants. But this doesn't seem to be allowed: When I use "Tools/Procedure Attributes" to set the Keys function to be the default, and then I use it to set the Item property to be the default, the IDE complains that a default has already been set.
So I think I'm misunderstanding something fundamental here. What is going on in the Scripting.Dictionary object that makes it able to act as if "Keys" is the default in some contexts, but as if "Item" is the default in others? And whatever it is, can I accomplish the same thing in VB6?
OK, answering my own question: I haven't tried this yet, but I gather that "Item" should be made the default, and that I should add an entirely new function called "NewEnum" that looks something like the following (slightly modified from an example in Francesco Balena's "Programming Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0" book):
Public Function NewEnum() As IUnknown
Set NewEnum = m_Keys.[_NewEnum]
End Function
(where "m_Keys" is a Collection containing the keys), and then use Tools/Procedure Attributes to hide NewEnum and to set its ProcID to -4.
What you are observing is the difference between the default member and a collection enumerator. A COM object (including VB6 classes) can have both.
You can identify the default property of a class by looking in the Object Browser for the tiny blue globe or the words "default member of" in the description (see Contents of the Object Browser). The Object Browser will not identify an enumerator method, but if you look at the class's interface definition using OLE View or TypeLib Browser (free but registration required) it's DispId will be 0xfffffffc or -4.
In your own class, you can mark the default property by setting the Procedure ID to "(default)" in the Procedure Attributes dialog (see Making a Property or Method the Default). You already listed the steps for setting up the collection enumerator in your own answer, but you can find this listed as well in the Programmer's Guide topic Creating Your Own Collection Class: The House of Bricks.
Scripting.Dictionary has a dirty secret:
It does not handle enumeration at all, it returns big ugly Variant arrays and your For Each loops iterate over those.
This is one of the reasons why a Dictionary can actually be far less efficient than a standard VB6 Collection.
I haven't found anything about this.
In PL/SQL, if I provide a constructor for an object, the default one will still be created, or it's like in C++ or Java?
Yes, the default constructor is still there. Incidently, if you create another constructor with the same name and arguments you'll get an error PLS-307: too many declarations of ... when you try to use it.
Is it possible to make unity try all defined constructors starting with the one with most arguments down to the least specific one (the default constructor)?
Edit
What I mean:
foreach (var constructor in concrete.GetConstructorsOrderByParameterCount())
{
if(CanFulfilDependencies(constructor))
{
UseConstructor(constructor);
break;
}
}
I don't want Unity to only try the constructor with most parameters. I want it to continue trying until it finds a suitable constructor. If Unity doesn't provide this behavior by default, is it possible to create an extension or something to be able to do this?
Edit 2
I got a class with two constructors:
public class MyConcrete : ISomeInterface
{
public MyConcrete (IDepend1 dep, IDepend2 dep2)
{}
public MyConcrete(IDepend1 dep)
{}
}
The class exists in a library which is used by multiple projects. In this project I want to use second constructor. But Unity stops since it can't fulfill the dependencies by the first constructor. And I do not want to change the class since the first constructor is used by DI in other projects.
Hence the need for Unity to try resolving all constructors.
Unity will choose the constructor with the most parameters unless you explicitly tag a constructor with the [InjectionConstructor] attribute which would then define the constructor for Unity to use.
When you state a suitable constructor; that is somewhat contingent on the environment. If for instance you always want to guarantee that a certain constructor is used when making use of Unity use the attribute mentioned previously, otherwise explicitly call the constructor you want to use.
What would be the point of Unity "trying" all constructors? It's purpose is to provide an instance of a type in a decoupled manner. Why would it iterate through the constructors if any constructor will create an instance of the type?
EDIT:
You could allow the constructor with the most params to be used within the project that does not have a reference to that type within its container by making use of a child container. This will not force the use of the constructor with a single param but it will allow the constructor with 2 params to work across the projects now.
You could also switch to using the single constructor across the board and force the other interface in via another form of DI (Property Injection), not Constructor Injection...therefore the base is applicable across the projects which would make more sense.
I'm re-writing an MXML item renderer in pure AS. A problem I can't seem to get past is how to have each item renderer react to a change on a static property on the item renderer class. In the MXML version, I have the following binding set up on the item renderer:
instanceProperty={callInstanceFunction(ItemRenderer.staticProperty)}
What would be the equivalent way of setting this up in AS (using BindingUtils, I assume)?
UPDATE:
So I thought the following wasn't working, but it appears as if Flex is suppressing errors thrown in the instanceFunction, making it appear as if the binding itself is bad.
BindingUtils.bindSetter(instanceFunction, ItemRenderer, "staticProperty");
However, when instanceFunction is called, already initialized variables on the given instance are all null, which was the cause of the errors referenced above. Any ideas why this is?
You have 2 options that I am aware of:
Option 1
You can dig into the code that the flex compiler builds based on your MXML to see how it handles binding to static properties. There is a compiler directive called -keep-generated-actionscript that will cause generated files to stick around. Sleuthing through these can give you an idea what happens. This option will involve instantiating Binding objects and StaticPropertyWatcher objects.
Option 2
There is staticEventDispatcher object that gets added at build time to classes containing static variables see this post http://thecomcor.blogspot.com/2008/07/adobe-flex-undocumented-buildin.html. According to the post, this object only gets added based on the presence of static variables and not getter functions.
Example of Option 2
Say we have a class named MyClassContainingStaticVariable with a static variable named MyStaticVariable and another variable someobject.somearrayproperty that we want to get updated whenever MyStaticVariable changes.
Class(MyClassContainingStaticVariable).staticEventDispatcher.addEventListener(
PropertyChangeEvent.PROPERTY_CHANGE,
function(event:PropertyChangeEvent):void
{
if(event.property == "MyStaticVariable")
{
someobject.somearrayproperty = event.newValue as Array;
}
});
I think you need to respond to the "PropertyChanged" event.
If you're going to do that, use a singleton instead of static. I don't think it will work on a static. (If you have to do it that way at all, there are probably a couple ways you could reapproach this that would be better).
var instance:ItemRenderer = ItemRenderer.getInstance();
BindingUtils.bindProperty(this, "myProperty", instance, "theirProperty");
After fiddling with this for a while, I have concluded that this currently isn't possible in ActionScript, not even with bindSetter. It seems there are some MXML-only features of data bindings judging by the following excerpt from the Adobe docs (though isn't it all compiled to AS code anyways)?
You cannot include functions or array
elements in property chains in a data
binding expression defined by the
bindProperty() or bindSetter() method.
For more information on property
chains, see Working with bindable
property chains.
Source: http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/3/html/help.html?content=databinding_7.html
You can create a HostProxy class to stand in for the funciton call. Sort of like a HostFunctionProxy class which extends from proxy, and has a getProperty("functionInvokeStringWithParameters") which will invoke the function remotely from the host, and dispatch a "change" event to trigger the binding in typical [Bindable("change")] Proxy class.
You than let the HostProxy class act as the host, and use the property to remotely trigger the function call. Of course, it'd be cooler to have some TypeHelperUtil to allow converting raw string values to serialized type values at runtime for method parameters (splitted by commas usually).
Example:
eg.
var standInHost:Object = new HostFunctionProxy(someModelClassWithMethod, "theMethodToCall(20,11)");
// With BindingUtils.....
// bind host: standInHost
// bind property: "theMethodToCall(20,11)"
Of course, you nee to create such a utlity to help support such functionality beyond the basic Flex prescription. It seems many of such (more advanced) Flex bindings are usually done at compile time, but now you have to create code to do this at runtime in a completely cross-platform Actionscript manner without relying on the Flex framework.