What is the best way to get all connected sockets in a selected room. I've found this line :
io.in(roomID).fetchSockets()
But in my nestJS structure I don't have an IO instance.
You can use decorator provided by NestJS. Nest will automatically assign the server instance to this property once it is ready to use.
#WebSocketServer()
server: Server;
Somewhere before constructor and other methods together with other service/class properties. Then you could use it like this: this.server.in(roomID).fetchSockets();
Related
As the topic, when I use ortools, I want to serialize cpsolver, CpSolverSolutionCallback and cpmodel to achieve multithread computing. However, I can't just serialize those objects directly and I think I need to only serialize their configuration and reset configuration in each thread, such as all the constraint and variables in the cpmodel and parameters in cpsolver. This is the question, how can I get all those values using ortools? Is there an api or something? I can't find it when searching on Google.
Every language implements a thin wrapper above a protocol buffer file.
This file is described here
This model is accessible from each CpModel class.
Now you can distribute work using this proto directly. You will need to look at the CpSolver class to understand how the c++ Solve method is called.
See the python solve method.
The way to implement your request.
Create your model normally.
Extract the underlying protocol buffer model underneath and use it for parallelism/distribution.
Solve will returns a CpSolverResponse object. To get the value of a variable in the response, call response.Value(var.Index()), or store the index of the relevant variables and use it in the Value() method call.
I'm trying to use Zenject in Unity. I have an interface and several implementations of it.
I want to inject with ID but also that the implementation will have the tick interface since it's not a MonoBehaviour.
So I have an IAttacker interface and a MeleeAttackImpl implementation.
Container.Bind<IAttacker>().WithId(AttackerTypeEnum.MELEEE).To<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsTransient();
I want to add
Container.BindInterfacesTo<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsTransient();
But it creates 2 different objects instead of instances that have the Tick interface and bind them to IAttacker.
If you want to bind an interface to a determined implementation, why do you use two bindings?
If you want only one instance of the object I would try:
Container.BindInterfacesAndSelfTo<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsSingle();
or:
Container.Bind<IAttacker>().To<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsSingle();
As Single() In the case you need the same instance provided from the container along the app (like a singleton).
From the documentation:
"AsTransient - Will not re-use the instance at all. Every time ContractType is requested, the DiContainer will execute the given construction method again."
Many times intance is created in the binding itself. So maybe from the two binding two instances are created, one from each binding.
In case you need to create instances dynamically with all their dependencies resolved, what you need a is Factory.
I would like to be able to use a Flask request out of context.
I realise since Flask 0.10 there is a decorator(#copy_current_request_context) available to do that, and this is how I am using that decorator to try and modify flask-socket . Specifically the #socket.route decorator which is part of flask-sockets:
def route(self, rule, request, **options):
def decorator(f):
endpoint = options.pop('endpoint', None)
#copy_current_request_context
def do_some_work():
env = request.environ['wsgi.websocket']
self.add_url_rule(rule, endpoint, f,env, **options)
gevent.spawn(do_some_work)
return f
return decorator
Although the error this produces does make sense to me - I am assuming there's a way to do what I want.:
RuntimeError: This decorator can only be used at local scopes when a
request context is on the stack. For instance within view functions.
I tried passing the request into the decorator, but that didn't work.
To give a little more context, I am trying to add the request.environ['wsgi.websocket'] to a dict inside the Sockets object to be able to access the ws variable (which I understand to be the request environment).
On a higher level, I'd like the ability to do ws.send() from somewhere other than the #route function or view - perhaps another thread that has access to the socket object instance.
I've done something similar with Socket-IO - where the socketio object is all you need to be able to send() and recieve() data - however with Sockets it seems you need the ws object, which is the request.environ['wsgi.websocket']
I'm building an API that needs to connect to a different database per request. Currently I'm using EF. These databases all have the same schema, therefore I can share a DbContext class. I have repositories to abstract persistence, and these are the ones using the DbContext objects.
Unity is handling dependency resolution, it is injecting my repositories with DbContext objects, and the repos on the controllers. Basically with zero configuration. I understand that probably I may need to create my own HttpRequestLifeCycle thing as suggested in this answer to make sure I have the same DbContext object through out the request.
Now, I would like to configure a ConnectionString to be used by Unity when creating DbContext objects to pass along to the repositories.
These ConnectionString will come from a repository (most likely a different fixed database), based on a parameter on my route. So, my intention is to have a delegating handler inspect the route, get the parameter, get the ConnectionString and tell Unity: "here, use this particular connection string when creating DbContext objects for my repositories during this request."
First, is my approach reasonable? Is this achievable?
How would this dynamic parameter configuration done?
Thanks in advance,
Yes, this is reasonable and achievable and frankly, easy.
Just approach this differently, instead of thinking how to inject connection strings, just register a factory for your db contexts. In the factory method, use the route information to read the connection string and return the context.
containe.Register<MyDbContext>( new InjectionFactory(
c => {
// this is the factory method
// the code will be executed upon each resolution
String routeInfo = GetTenantFromCurrentRoute();
String cs = GetCsFor( routeInfo );
return new MyDbContext( cs );
}, new PerHttpRequestLifetimeManager() )
I'm using GWT 2.4 with RequestFactory but not still everything is clear for me.
In this article author wrote about situation when we used an entity proxy with one instance of RequestContext and want to reuse (edit()) this entity proxy with other instance of RequestContext:
It cannot be edited because it has already a requestContext assigned.
If you want to change it you must retrieve instance of this entity
from server again
But I'm getting no exceptions when I execute this code:
RequestContext newRequest1 = factory.myRequest();
newRequest1.edit(proxy);
RequestContext newRequest2 = factory.myRequest();
newRequest2.edit(proxy);
The problems (exception) described by autor pop up when I run this version:
RequestContext newRequest1 = factory.myRequest();
MyProxy edited = newRequest1.edit(proxy);
RequestContext newRequest2 = factory.myRequest();
newRequest2.edit(edited);
So it seems that only editable copy returned by edit() is directly related with RequestContext instance.
In that case is there something wrong in approoach in which I keep one instance of (uneditable/frozen) proxy in my edit view and each time user clicks "edit" button I edit() it with new fresh RequestContext? Or should I obtain fresh instance of proxy each time too?
Getting new instance of proxy seems a bit awkward for me but I guess reusing one proxy instance may cause some issues related to sending delta of changes to server?
So to rephrase the question: it a good practice to reuse single instance of proxy with multiple RequestContexts?
There's no problem editing the same proxy twice (or more), as long as there's only a single editable instance at a time (your first code snippet should throw; if it's not then it's a bug; it could work if you don't keep references on both the RequestContext and the edited proxy).
Note that RequestFactory sends only the modified properties to the server, but it does so by diff'ing with the non-editable instance passed to edit(); so you should try to use the most recent instance as possible to keep your server-side/persisted data as close to your client-side data as possible (could seem obvious, but can lead to some surprises in practice: if you see foo on the client but have bar on the server, you'll keep the bar on the server-side until you modify the property on the client-side to something other than foo)