When i read the doc, both seems to be the same. Then what is the difference between these two? Please explain the difference between the two with an example like in which scenario which to be used.
Regards,
The first one is a generic listener to the session. It's called whenever an attribute of any kind is being added or removed to/from a session. It's used when you want to be informed of any session attribute addition/removal.
The second one is a callback interface that can be implemented by a specific class. The callback method is called on an object implementing this interface when this object is being bound/unbound to/from the session. It's used when you want an object to be informed of its own addition/removal to/from the session.
HttpSessionBindingListener:
If an object implements HttpSessionBindingListener, it is notified when it is bound to or unbound from a session. For example,
MyObject implements HttpSessionBindingListener
{
// class definition
}
If I call
session.setAttribute ("Object", MyObject)
methods valueBound and/or valueUnbound (defined in HttpSessionBindingListener, implemented in MyObject are called)
Implementing HttpSessionBindingListener works only for the object that implements it
HttpSessionAttributeListener:
When any class implements HttpSessionAttributeListener interface it is notified when any change in the attribute list of session occurs. For example
MyClass implements HttpSessionAttributeListener
{
// implementations of methods
}
session.setAttribute ("anything", AnyObjectNotOnlyMyClass);
indicates change in the list of attributes.Implementing HttpSessionAttributeListener listens to any attribute added, removed or replaced.
Related
I am building an WPF application using the MVVM Light Toolkit and specifically SimpleIoc.
I have a parent viewmodel that dynamically creates child viewmodels. When doing this I am using "standard" dependency injection to pass a IConfigService as a parameter to the constructor. I want the IConfigService to be a unique instance for each child viewmodel. So I try this:
IConfigService service = SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance<IConfigService>(key);
ChildViewModel vm = new ChildViewModel(service);
Where key is a unique identifier for each child viewmodel. According to the documentation of MVVM Light and SimpleIoc this GetInstance method:
...provides a way to get an instance of a given type corresponding to a given key. If no instance had been instantiated with this key before, a new instance will be created.
There is also a remark that the class must have been registered before, else it returns null. In my case it has been, in ViewModelLocator:
var configService = new ConfigService();
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IConfigService>(() => configService);
However, the GetInstance call returns the same instance every time.
What am I doing wrong here?
You registered an already instantiated object.
SimpleIoc does not create its own instances with this overload. It always returns configService. Either you need to perform the instantiation within the lambda, because you are using a factory overload, or you can do this more easily by just passing the ConfigService type. SimpleIoc will take care of the instantiation itself.
In JavaFx, I understand that if I want a button to make some code run when it is clicked, I need to somehow have the code that I want to have run inside a method, and because this is Java, I wrap that method inside a class that extends EventHandler . For example:
// (myButton is a reference variable to a Button object)
myButton.setOnAction(new MyButtonEventHandlerClass() );
// inner class
public class MyButtonEventHandlerClass extends EventHandler<ActionEvent>{
public void handle(ActionEvent e) {
// (some code)
}
}
My confusion is: why is JavaFX designed to require me to make an instance of the class holding the handle() method? I had thought that non-static methods are used when the instance variables of an object are used; or in other words, if you just need a method that does not need an object, then you should use a static method. In this kind of thinking, handle() sounds like it should be a static method.
Why is handle() not a static method?
The criteria for a EventHandler to work in a meaningful way in this case are:
There needs to be some way to store the information.
The information has to be stored in a way that allows more than one way of dealing with a event.
Now regardless of the handle method actually using any fields in the EventHandlerand/or enclosing classes, there needs to be a way do identify the code that should handle the event.
If handle only was a static method, there only would ever be a single handler which even worse would be determined by the JavaFX programmers, since static methods cannot be overridden. It would not be possible to fulfil condition 2. without a non-static method.
For non-static methods however it's pretty simple to deal with this. Methods can be overridden and handling the event the correct way can simply be done by invoking EventHandler.handle for the event handler object.
In java 8 however method references (or lambda expressions) could be used to shorten this a bit by using method references, which allows you to "use a method as interface instance":
public class MyClass {
public static void handleMyButtonAction(ActionEvent evt) {
// (some code)
}
}
myButton.setOnAction(MyClass::handleMyButtonAction);
A friend asked me this and not sure how to understand. Prolly a simple answer.
He has the following
Public Class TestClass
Public Sub Setup()
MsgBox ("Hello")
End Sub
End Class
Based on that example, what type of member is Setup, in relation to the TestClass class?
I think it it might be an instance member. Because a class is just a collection of instances (methods, properties, etc) within the class.
Correct?
This would be an instance method as opposed to a class method (static methods).
When a field, method, property, event, indexer, constructor, or destructor declaration does not include a static modifier, it declares an instance member.
More information here.
Initially my answer said that a member is the same as a field. According to the MSDN link above this was not entirely correct so I adjusted it. You'll also notice that they use the term static member instead of instance member.
Terminology is a very tricky subject and you'll notice people use many different descriptions for the same subject. This is further amplified when you take other languages in consideration and the terminology there.
It is an instance method, but not because a class is a collection of instances.
It is an instance method because TestClass is not shared (static), and must be instantiated. That is, there must be a instance of TestClass available to use its method Setup(). Conversely, with a Shared class, you do not need an instance of TestClass to use Setup(), it would be a Shared method and not an instance method.
That is academic, however, since VB does not support static classes (Shared Classes), but does support shared methods, the effective difference is that declaring Setup() as Public makes it an instance method, or declaring it as Shared would make it a static method.
I want to extend the FileReference class of Flex to contain a custom property. I want to do this because AS3 doesn't let me pass arguments to functions through event listeners, which makes me feel sad, so I need this property to exist on the event target, so I can access it.
I also want to be able to cast extant FileReference objects to this class without any fuss. I have:
var fr:SmxFR = e.target as SmxFR
and I want that to work; right now it just returns null.
A blank, newly instantiated SmxFR object has the extended property in place, but all of its inherited properties and objects return Error: Error #2037: Functions called in incorrect sequence, or earlier call was unsuccessful.
This is the class I am using, SmxFR.as:
package
{
import flash.net.FileReference;
public class SmxFR extends FileReference
{
public var housenum:String = "";
public function SmxFR()
{
super();
}
}
}
Kept it as straightforward as I could, really. Can someone please help me figure this out? Thanks.
Edit:
Per request, this is the instantiation which results in the aforementioned error in all inherited objects:
var fr:SmxFR = new SmxFR();
I get living handle property from that, and all other (that is, inherited) properties throw Error #2037.
So, maybe what I want to do is going to require overriding FileReferenceList? If the original objects must be instantiated to SxmFR, that's what I'll have to do, since I'm using FRL to allow the user to select multiple files at once. Are you guys sure there is no way to fast from a FileReference to my class?
You can totally pass objects via event listeners, it's just done in a specific way. I'd learn to do it correctly, rather than trying to extend a core library which could cause you problems later if you make a small mistake.
My solution: instead of extending FileReference, extend Event and add your properties to that.
var myEvent:MyExtendedEvent = new MyExtendedEvent();
myEvent.myCustomProperty = myValue;
dispatchEvent(myEvent);
Then in your handler you just write:
function myEventHandler(e:MyExtendedEvent):void {
trace(e.myCustomProperty);
}
Much more painless to go down this road! The added benefit is that if any other Flash Developer anywhere ever looks at your code they're not going to get hit in the face with a non-standard customized FileReference. :)
When e.target is instantiate as FileReference you can't cast it to SmxFR because it's not in the line of inheritance. In the other way you can a SmxFR Object to FileRefernce.
Extending FileReferenceList is not going to be helpful. FileReferenceList.browse() method creates an array of FileReference object when user selects multiple files - that happens internally (may be in its private methods) and you cannot change that behavior and force it to create SxmFR objects instead. Use custom events as Myk suggested.
This article talks about Sound objects, but may be that's applicable to FileReference objects too. May be you cannot reuse them. Post the code where you use the SmxFr class and get the said error.
I have a class called CommunicationManager which is responsible for communication with server.
It includes methods login() and onLoginResponse(). In case of user login the method login() has to be called and when the server responds the method onLoginResponse() is executed.
What I want to do is to bind actions with user interface. In the GUI class I created an instance of CommunicationManager called mCommunicationManager. From GUI class the login() method is simply called by the line
mCommunicationManager.login();
What I don't know how to do is binding the method from GUI class to onLoginResponse(). For example if the GUI class includes the method notifyUser() which displays the message received from theserver.
I would really appreciate if anyone could show how to bind methods in order to execute the method from GUI class (ex. GUI.notifyUser()) when the instance of the class mCommunicationManager receives the message from the server and the method CommunicationManager.onLoginResponse() is executed.
Thanks!
There's two patterns here I can see you using. One is the publish/subscribe or observer pattern mentioned by Pete. I think this is probably what you want, but seeing as the question mentions binding a method for later execution, I thought I should mention the Command pattern.
The Command pattern is basically a work-around for the fact that java does not treat methods (functions) as first class objects and it's thus impossible to pass them around. Instead, you create an interface that can be passed around and that encapsulates the necessary information about how to call the original method.
So for your example:
interface Command {
public void execute();
}
and you then pass in an instance of this command when you execute the login() function (untested, I always forget how to get anonymous classes right):
final GUI target = this;
command = new Command() {
#Override
public void execute() {
target.notifyUser();
}
};
mCommunicationManager.login(command);
And in the login() function (manager saves reference to command):
public void login() {
command.execute();
}
edit:
I should probably mention that, while this is the general explanation of how it works, in Java there is already some plumbing for this purpose, namely the ActionListener and related classes (actionPerformed() is basically the execute() in Command). These are mostly intended to be used with the AWT and/or Swing classes though, and thus have features specific to that use case.
The idiom used in Java to achieve callback behaviour is Listeners. Construct an interface with methods for the events you want, have a mechanism for registering listener object with the source of the events. When an event occurs, call the corresponding method on each registered listener. This is a common pattern for AWT and Swing events; for a randomly chosen example see FocusListener and the corresponding FocusEvent object.
Note that all the events in Java AWT and Swing inherit ultimately from EventObject, and the convention is to call the listener SomethingListener and the event SomethingEvent. Although you can get away with naming your code whatever you like, it's easier to maintain code which sticks with the conventions of the platform.
As far as I know Java does not support method binding or delegates like C# does.
You may have to implement this via Interfaces (e.g. like Command listener.).
Maybe this website will be helpful:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javatips/jw-javatip10.html
You can look at the swt-snippets (look at the listeners)
http://www.eclipse.org/swt/snippets/
or you use the runnable class , by overwritting the run method with your 'callback'-code when you create an instance