I'm pretty new to MVVM light world, and after searches I can't find what I want to do.
My WP7 application contains a pivot, each pivot item content is View1 and viewmodel is VM1.
When loading my application, I'd like to create every pivot item with the same view and view model but with different parameter.
example :
PivotItem 1 -> send param "car" to the view model
PivotItem 2 -> send param "truck" to the view model, etc.
Google told me to use messaging but if I send 2 messages from my MainViewModel, both PivotItem1 and PivotItem2 ViewModel will receive these messages.
Am I wrong with this approach ?
Is there another solution to succeed ?
Thank you in advance for your answer.
PS : be indulgent, english is not my native language, don't hesitate to ask for further information.
Regards,
Aymeric Lagier
To seperate the messages use the second constructor signature whereby you can pass a token. This token can be anything but I generally use an enum to store all my message types within the system.
Create a static class in a common library and reference this in all projects where you need to send or receive messages.
The following code hopefully shows this approach, notice I am sending a string as a value within the message but this can be anything, even a complex object such as one of your business objects.
namespace MyProject.Common
{
public static class AppMessages
{
enum MessageTypes
{
ViewmodelA,
ViewmodelB
}
public static class ViewModelAUpdate
{
public static void Send(string value)
{
Messenger.Default.Send(value, MessageTypes.ViewmodelA);
}
public static void Register(object recipient, Action<string> action)
{
Messenger.Default.Register(recipient, MessageTypes.ViewmodelA, action);
}
}
public static class ViewModelBUpdate
{
public static void Send(string value)
{
Messenger.Default.Send(value, MessageTypes.ViewmodelB);
}
public static void Register(object recipient, Action<string> action)
{
Messenger.Default.Register(recipient, MessageTypes.ViewmodelB, action);
}
}
}
}
How about using a method to set the message you want to receive. (this could be done as a parameter in the constructor or a property as well)
public void RegisterForAppMessage(AppMessages.MessageTypes messageType)
{
switch (messageType)
{
case AppMessages.MessageTypes.PivotViewItem1Message:
AppMessages.PivotViewItem1Message.Register(this,DoSomethingWhenIRecievePivotViewItem1Messages)
break;
case AppMessages.MessageTypes.PivotViewItem2Message:
AppMessages.PivotViewItem2Message.Register(this,DoSomethingWhenIRecievePivotViewItem2Messages)
break;
}
}
private void DoSomethingWhenIRecievePivotViewItem2Messages(string obj)
{
// TODO: Implement this method
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
private void DoSomethingWhenIRecievePivotViewItem1Messages(string obj)
{
// TODO: Implement this method
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
Messaging sounds a bit heavy for this purpose. Could you simply inject a parameter into your ViewModel. If you already have MVVMLight you also have support for SimpleIOC. Maybe let the view locate its ViewModel when the view is resolved and there decide which parameter to use on the view model?
You can see an example of it here
Related
I have a project consisting of 2 parts:
ASP.NET API using Entity Framework
.NET MAUI Client App
I use DTOs for comunication from/to the API in order not to expose other properties of my entities. Thanks to this approach I was able to separate Entity data and data that are sent from the API.
At first I used these DTOs also in the MAUI UI. But after some time I started to notice that they contains UI-specific properties, attributes or methods that have no purpose for the API itself, so they are redundant in requests.
EXAMPLE:
1 - API will receive request from MAUI to get exercise based on it's name
2- ExerciseService returns: ExerciseEntity and ExerciseController use AutoMapper to Map ExerciseEntity -> ExerciseDto ommiting ExerciseId field (only admin can see this info in the DB) and returning it in the API response
3 - MAUI receives from the API ExerciseDto. But in the client side it also want to know if data from ExerciseDto are collapsed in the UI. So because of that I add IsCollapsed property into the ExerciseDto. But now this is a redundant property for the API, because I dont want to persist this information in the database.
QUESTIONS:
Should I map these DTOs to new objects on the client side ?
Or how to approach this problem ?
Is there an easier way how to achieve the separation ?
Because having another mapping layer will add extra complexity and a lot of duplicate properties between DTOs and those new client objects.
Normally if you use clean architecture approach your DTOs shoud contain no attributes and other specific data relevant just for some of your projects, to be freely usable by other projects in a form of dependency.
Then you'd have different approaches to consume DTOs in a xamarin/maui application, for example:
APPROACH 1.
Mapping (of course) into a class that is suitable for UI. Here you have some options, use manual mapping, write your own code that uses reflection or use some third party lib using same reflection. Personally using all of them, and when speaking of third party libs Mapster has shown very good to me for api and mobile clients.
APPROACH 2.
Subclass DTO. The basic idea is to deserialize dto into the derived class, then call Init(); if needed. All properties that you manually implemented as new with OnPropertyChanged will update bindings after being popupated by deserializer/mapper and you alse have a backup plan to call RaiseProperties(); for all of the props, even thoses who do not have OnPropertyChanged in place so they can update bindings if any.
Example:
our Api DTO
public class SomeDeviceDTO
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Port { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Our derived class for usage in mobile client:
public class SomeDevice : SomeDeviceDTO, IFromDto
{
// we want to be able to change this Name property in run-time and to
// reflect changes so we make it bindable (other props will remain without
// OnPropertyChanged BUT we can always update all bindings in code if needed
// using RaiseProperties();):
private string _name;
public new string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set
{
if (_name != value)
{
_name = value;
OnPropertyChanged();
}
}
}
// ADD any properties you need for UI
// ...
#region IFromDto
public void Init()
{
//put any code you'd want to exec after dto's been imported
// for example to fill any new prop with data derived from what you received
}
public void RaiseProperties()
{
var props = this.GetType().GetProperties();
foreach (var property in props)
{
if (property.CanRead)
{
OnPropertyChanged(property.Name);
}
}
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
protected void OnPropertyChanged([CallerMemberName] string propertyName = "")
{
PropertyChanged?.Invoke(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
}
#endregion
}
public interface IFromDto : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
//
// Summary:
// Can initialize model after it's being loaded from dto
void Init();
//
// Summary:
// Notify all properties were updated
void RaiseProperties();
}
We can get it like: var device = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<SomeDevice>(jsonOfSomeDeviceDTO);
We then can call Init(); if needed..
Feel free to edit this answer to add more approaches..
This question already has answers here:
How to make a Java class that implements one interface with two generic types?
(9 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have the following interface, which I want to implement multiple times in my classes:
public interface EventListener<T extends Event>
{
public void onEvent(T event);
}
Now, I want to be able to implement this interface in the following way:
class Foo implements EventListener<LoginEvent>, EventListener<LogoutEvent>
{
#Override
public void onEvent(LoginEvent event)
{
}
#Override
public void onEvent(LogoutEvent event)
{
}
}
However, this gives me the error: Duplicate class com.foo.EventListener on the line:
class Foo implements EventListener<LoginEvent>, EventListener<LogoutEvent>
Is it possible to implement the interface twice with different generics? If not, what's the next closest thing I can do to achieve what I'm trying to do here?
Is it possible to implement the interface twice with different generics
Unfortunately no. The reason you can't implement the same interface twice is because of type erasure. The compiler will handle type parameters, and a runtime EventListener<X> is just a EventListener
If not, what's the next closest thing I can do to achieve what I'm trying to do here?
Type erasure can work in our favor. Once you know that EventListener<X> and EventListener<Y> are just raw EventListener at run-time, it is easier than you think to write an EventListener that can deal with different kinds of Events. Bellow is a solution that passes the IS-A test for EventListener and correctly handles both Login and Logout events by means of simple delegation:
#SuppressWarnings("rawtypes")
public class Foo implements EventListener {
// Map delegation, but could be anything really
private final Map<Class<? extends Event>, EventListener> listeners;
// Concrete Listener for Login - could be anonymous
private class LoginListener implements EventListener<LoginEvent> {
public void onEvent(LoginEvent event) {
System.out.println("Login");
}
}
// Concrete Listener for Logout - could be anonymous
private class LogoutListener implements EventListener<LogoutEvent> {
public void onEvent(LogoutEvent event) {
System.out.println("Logout");
}
}
public Foo() {
#SuppressWarnings("rawtypes")
Map<Class<? extends Event>, EventListener> temp = new HashMap<>();
// LoginEvents will be routed to LoginListener
temp.put(LoginEvent.class, new LoginListener());
// LogoutEvents will be routed to LoginListener
temp.put(LogoutEvent.class, new LogoutListener());
listeners = Collections.unmodifiableMap(temp);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public void onEvent(Event event) {
// Maps make it easy to delegate, but again, this could be anything
if (listeners.containsKey(event.getClass())) {
listeners.get(event.getClass()).onEvent(event);
} else {
/* Screams if a unsupported event gets passed
* Comment this line if you want to ignore
* unsupported events
*/
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Event not supported");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Foo foo = new Foo();
System.out.println(foo instanceof EventListener); // true
foo.onEvent(new LoginEvent()); // Login
foo.onEvent(new LogoutEvent()); // Logout
}
}
The suppress warnings are there because we are "abusing" type erasure and delegating to two different event listeners based on the event concrete type. I have chosen to do it using a HashMap and the run-time Event class, but there are a lot of other possible implementations. You could use anonymous inner classes like #user949300 suggested, you could include a getEventType discriminator on the Event class to know what do to with each event and so on.
By using this code for all effects you are creating a single EventListener able to handle two kinds of events. The workaround is 100% self-contained (no need to expose the internal EventListeners).
Finally, there is one last issue that may bother you. At compile time Foo type is actually EventListener. Now, API methods out of your control may be expecting parametrized EventListeners:
public void addLoginListener(EventListener<LoginEvent> event) { // ...
// OR
public void addLogoutListener(EventListener<LogoutEvent> event) { // ...
Again, at run-time both of those methods deal with raw EventListeners. So by having Foo implement a raw interface the compiler will be happy to let you get away with just a type safety warning (which you can disregard with #SuppressWarnings("unchecked")):
eventSource.addLoginListener(foo); // works
While all of this may seem daunting, just repeat to yourself "The compiler is trying to trick me (or save me); there is no spoon <T>. Once you scratch your head for a couple of months trying to make legacy code written before Java 1.5 work with modern code full of type parameters, type erasure becomes second nature to you.
You need to use inner or anonymous classes. For instance:
class Foo {
public EventListener<X> asXListener() {
return new EventListener<X>() {
// code here can refer to Foo
};
}
public EventListener<Y> asYListener() {
return new EventListener<Y>() {
// code here can refer to Foo
};
}
}
This is not possible.
But for that you could create two different classes that implement EventListener interface with two different arguments.
public class Login implements EventListener<LoginEvent> {
public void onEvent(LoginEvent event) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
}
public class Logout implements EventListener<LogoutEvent> {
public void onEvent(LogoutEvent event) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
}
I would like to capture and save in a log file all the requests that my WebAPI should handle.
Just tried to save the Request.Content from the controller constructor but unfortunately,
the request object is null from the controller constructor scope.
Hope to learn an efficient way to do it.
I would just hook into web api tracing...
http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/testing-and-debugging/tracing-in-aspnet-web-api
From the above article, you can implement ITraceWriter like so. This example uses System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine, but you could plug in writing to a file here as well.
public class SimpleTracer : ITraceWriter
{
public void Trace(HttpRequestMessage request, string category, TraceLevel level,
Action<TraceRecord> traceAction)
{
TraceRecord rec = new TraceRecord(request, category, level);
traceAction(rec);
WriteTrace(rec);
}
protected void WriteTrace(TraceRecord rec)
{
var message = string.Format("{0};{1};{2}",
rec.Operator, rec.Operation, rec.Message);
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine(message, rec.Category);
}
}
As you can see from the Trace method, you get access to the HttpRequestMessage here.
I ended up implementing middleware to deal with it.
public class GlobalRequestLogger : OwinMiddleware
{
public override Task Invoke(IOwinContext context)
{
// Implement logging code here
}
}
Then in your Startup.cs:
app.Use<GlobalRequestLogger>();
I have a Spring 3.2 Controller with basic request mappings like
#RequestMapping("/action")
public String action(#RequestParam("param") String param) {
//do stuff...
return "view";
}
This controller handles links created by non-technical business users. Sometimes the users mess it up and create links with duplicate parameters, e.g.,
www.example.com/action?param=value¶m=value
The parameter is an exact duplicate and probably a copy/paste error.
My problem is that Spring is concatenating these dupes together, so that the url above will give "value,value" for param, when I want only "value".
What is a good way to detect and handle these duplicates? I know I could change all my #RequestParams to List<String>s and go from there, but that's a whole lot of boilerplate over dozens of request mappings.
Ideally there would be a way to intercept and modify the url parameters before Spring attempts to bind them -- but only for this controller.
I found that I can register a custom String property editor to do this.
class DuplicateParameterReducingPropertyEditor extends PropertyEditorSupport {
Object value;
#Override
public void setValue(Object value) {
if (value instanceof String[]) {
String[] strings = (String[])value;
Set<String> unique = Sets.newHashSet(strings);
this.value = unique.toArray();
} else {
this.value = value;
}
}
#Override
public void setAsText(String text) throws IllegalArgumentException {
this.value = text;
}
#Override
public String getAsText() {
return value.toString();
}
#Override
public Object getValue() {
return value;
}
};
I added this to my controller:
#InitBinder
public void initBinder(WebDataBinder binder) {
PropertyEditor stringEditor = new DuplicateParameterReducingPropertyEditor();
binder.registerCustomEditor(String.class, stringEditor);
}
So whenever Spring encounters a #RequestParam-annotated String method argument, the PropertyEditor is invoked to transform the incoming data if needed. In the case of duplicate parameters, Spring passes a String[] of the values to the property editor setValue, which I can then manipulate.
This does have the results I am looking for. I'm not sure of all the implications of this, though, so I can't endorse it as good solution yet. Not having to alter any handler method signatures is a big plus though.
A good idea would be to extend AbstractNamedValueMethodArgumentResolver with your own strategy. Then the strategy could be used wherever you deem necessary.
This strategy only works for Spring 3.1+ which is not a problem for you since you are using Spring 3.2
I faced the same issue in Spring boot. Eventually I came up with this solution using converter, in case it helps anyone.
This method should be added as part of your WebMvcConfigurer class.
#Override
public void addFormatters(FormatterRegistry registry) {
// Duplicate query parameters converter
registry.addConverter(new Converter<String[], String>() {
public String convert(String[] arr) {
return arr[arr.length - 1]; // Return the last value
}
});
}
My app flow is as follows (simplified for clarity):
User GETs a page from "/page1"
User performs actions on the page (adds text, clicks, etc..), while Signalr communicates this data to the server, which performs heavy calculations in the background, and the results of those are returned to the page (lets call those "X").
When the user is finished with the page, he clicks a link to "/page2", that is returned by Nancy. This page is built using a Model that is dependent on X.
So, how do I build that Model based on X? How can signalr write to the user session in a way that Nancy can pick up on?
(I'm looking for a "clean" way)
Pending formal integration of Signalr & Nancy, this is what I came with. Basically, I share an IOC container between the two, and use an object (singleton lifetime) that maps users to state.
How to share an IOC container using the built in TinyIOC:
Extend Signalr's DefaultDependencyResolver
public class TinyIoCDependencyResolver : DefaultDependencyResolver
{
private readonly TinyIoCContainer m_Container;
public TinyIoCDependencyResolver(TinyIoCContainer container)
{
m_Container = container;
}
public override object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
return m_Container.CanResolve(serviceType) ? m_Container.Resolve(serviceType) : base.GetService(serviceType);
}
public override IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type serviceType)
{
var objects = m_Container.CanResolve(serviceType) ? m_Container.ResolveAll(serviceType) : new object[] { };
return objects.Concat(base.GetServices(serviceType));
}
}
Replace Signalr's default DependencyResolver with our new one
public class Bootstrapper : DefaultNancyBootstrapper
{
protected override void ApplicationStartup(TinyIoCContainer container, IPipelines pipelines)
{
CookieBasedSessions.Enable(pipelines);
// Replace UserToStateMap with your class of choice
container.Register<IUserToStateMap, UserToStateMap>();
GlobalHost.DependencyResolver = new TinyIoCDependencyResolver(container);
RouteTable.Routes.MapHubs();
}
}
Add IUserToStateMap as a dependency in your hubs and Nancy modules
public class MyModule : NancyModule
{
public MyModule(IUserToStateMap userToStateMap)
{
Get["/"] = o =>
{
var userId = Session["userId"];
var state = userToStateMap[userId];
return state.Foo;
};
}
}
public class MyHub : Hub
{
private readonly IUserToStateMap m_UserToStateMap;
public MyHub(IUserToStateMap userToStateMap)
{
m_UserToStateMap = userToStateMap;
}
public string MySignalrMethod(string userId)
{
var state = userToStateMap[userId];
return state.Bar;
}
}
What I would really want, is a way to easily share state between the two based on the connection ID or something like that, but in the meantime this solution works for me.
Did you arrive hear looking for a simple example of how to integrate Nancy and SignalR? I know I did.
Try this question instead (I self-answered it).
SignalR plus NancyFX : A simple but well worked example