This one is a theoretical question. How would you handle sharing data (data that should probably belong in ViewModel) across the entire application?
Example: In my MainActivity onCreate() I register a NetworkCallback on the ConnectivityManager. What data holder would you update on network changes? A property of a ViewModel shared by all fragments (but then there would be two ViewModel per fragment/screen(if using compose)? Public vars in the activity itself?
Let's make it harder and let's suppose we are using Hilt and we need to update some States which belong to a couple of different ViewModels when the connectivity changes.
What if we want to use LiveData / StateFlow?
How would you do it? Any input is appreciated!
EDIT:
This is the structure I'm talking about.
MainActivity
val mainViewModel by viewModels()
onCreate()
ConnectivityManager.registerDefaultCallback() // The callback updates values inside mainViewModel
setContent {} // Here we enter compose world.
NavHost()
BottomSheet(viewModel: BottomSheetViewModel = viewModel())
// Inside here I query viewModel.state to get the state of a web request.
// This state should take into account the connection state and if none is available it should be State.NO_CONNECTION
Basically, you save your network state (plus other stuff) in a dataStore class which will then return a flow that you can convert into LiveData.
From there you can subscribe to the Flow (in your ViewModel) and convert it into Livedata, which can then be observed from each Fragment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd_Lv7AxqkY&list=PLrnPJCHvNZuCfAe7QK2BoMPkv2TGM_b0E&index=7
Watch this video for a detailed explanation.
To get network updates(not only connection but network validity) in the form of LiveData.
You can add this class
https://github.com/E5c11/TicTacToe_3D/blob/master/app/src/main/java/com/esc/test/apps/network/ConnectionLiveData.java
It returns a boolean value which can be observed as LiveData in all classes/fragments when added as a Singleton (in Dagger).
#Provides
#Singleton
fun provideNetworkReport(Application app) = ConnectionLiveData(app)
You are then able to call it or inject it in the ViewModel with
val network: ConnectionLiveData
Then return it to the Fragment with
fun getNetwork() = network
Related
I want to implement Repository pattern on my Flutter app.
let say I create an interface to get book List like this
abstract class BookRepository {
Future<List<Book>> getBookList();
}
I want to display book list on my Home Page. if it has internet connection, then retrieve data from the Remote (using Dio), otherwise get data from Local storage (using Hive)
so I create 2 classes that implement the interface above.
the first one is for remote repository
class BookRemoteRepository implements BookRepository {
#override
Future<List<Book>> getBookList() async {
List<Book> booksFromServer = await dio.get(); // Using Dio
return booksFromServer;
}
}
the second one is for Local repository
class BookLocalRepository implements BookRepository {
#override
Future<List<Book>> getBookList() async {
List<Book> booksFromLocalStorage = await Hive.get(); // Using Hive
return booksFromLocalStorage;
}
}
I am confused where to put the logic to decide whether getting data from Remote or from Local
currently what Implement is like this
class HomePageController {
late BookRepository _bookRepository;
Future<List<Book>> retrieveBooks() async {
if (hasInternetConnection) {
_bookRepository = BookRemoteRepository();
} else {
_bookRepository = BookLocalRepository();
}
return await _bookRepository.getBookList();
}
}
that retrieveBooks method in HomePageController will be called if the user press a button on the UI.
do I implement the repository pattern correctly? do I need to make a separated class just to decide ? I am confused where to put the logic to decide whether getting data from Remote or from Local
You should check DDD Pattern, not sure if it is the same as repository pattern but here you can see the logic behind repositories.
https://resocoder.com/2020/03/09/flutter-firebase-ddd-course-1-domain-driven-design-principles/
https://github.com/mhadaily/flutter-architecture-ddd/tree/master/enterprise/lib/catalog/infrastructure
So, the idea is to have datasources (hive, api, json, etc) and in the repository have the logic to decide which datasource you are going to use.
The remote/local/cache abilities are "strategies" by which you choose to fulfill your repository's purpose, in runtime, according to network conditions.
You can solve this problem using the "strategy" pattern. Pass an instance implementing the strategy into the "context" - the domain object (BookRepository). The "context" should not be aware of the strategy and just execute the interface methods, in your case get().
But the solution above is not good enough because it assumes the strategy selection was made once and early in the application's lifecycle. In your case it's in your best interest to delay the strategy selection as much as possible, and to always be able to switch between strategies.
In addition, the strategy selection process itself is domain-agnostic meaning that the choice whether to fetch the data from remote or local should not be aware of the domain - it can be books or notes or drawings or whatever. It should only care about internet connection. Lastly you don't want to repeat yourself duplicating this code in different domains.
For those reasons, the strategy selection mechanism and the strategies' themselves should be implemented in separate classes that are domain-agnostic.
For example you can implement a CachedRepository<T> that implements Future<T> get. This cached repository would hold references to both Hive's interface and Remote's interface and perform the fallback logic inside.
The above suggestion was inspired from the answer provided here
Being able to share data between multiple view controllers and doing that in a way that makes use of recommended patterns such as MVC seems to be essential to create good apps, but my problem is that these things aren't clear at all for me.
I am conscient that this question is really dense, but for things to be clear I think you really need to understand the whole thing.
First of all we need to be sure of what Model, View and Controller are doing, here is how I would describe them, please tell me if I'm right about that:
Model : a class that's responsible for managing data, and only that (for example, a class that will go on the web to retrieve information, such as weather forecast).
View : a view is an object that's displayed to the user, who can often interact with it, that's the objects that you can drag and drop in Interface Builder (for example a button) and you might also create one from scratch, or custom an already existing one by subclassing it.
Controller : a controller is responsible for managing a view and its subviews, it receives events (such as viewDidLoad, or even when the user taps a button) and can react to it, for example, it might change the text of a label.
Now about the way they are interacting between each other, I'd say that the controller is between the view and the model, it's managing the view and might ask for data to the model. In addition to receiving events from the view, it might also receive events from the model, for example, if the controller asks to the model for a specific data on the web (let's say if it asks weather for a specific city) the data won't be available immediately, instead, the model will notify the controller so that it can update the view with the data it received. Am I right?
One of the first thing I'm wondering is if an object could be considered as a model if it isn't here to retrieve data, but to do other things that are simply not related to the view, for example, could an object that's responsible for communicating and managing a bluetooth accessory considered as a model ? Could an object that sends data to a cloud considered as a model ? And what about a Tic Tac Toe AI ?
Then, singleton instances, I often heard of them when an app had to share data between multiple views, but first of all, I never really understood why it was necessary to use them in this case ?
Then, here is a singleton that I found in an article of the We Heart Swift website.
class Singleton {
struct Static {
static let instance = Singleton()
}
class var sharedInstance: Singleton {
return Static.instance
}
}
Singleton.sharedInstance
The problem if that I have had difficulties to find anywhere more details about why it's written in this way, and most of all, can a singleton have an initializer that takes arguments? How to add properties and methods to a singleton like this one? What are exactly the Static structure and the sharedInstance?
My last question is about why, technically, does a singleton makes it possible to get an access to things we have defined somewhere else? What I mean is that if I create an instance of let's say, a Dog class in my AppDelegate, and if I want to access to this specific instance in a view controller, then it wouldn't be possible, so how does singleton makes that possible under the hood?
EDIT : Oh, and, is the use of singletons recommended by Apple?
Thank you.
It has to do with the static in the struct. Static is essentially a class variable that persists for every instance of that class, so when you make the shared instance static, every time you access it, even from another instance of Singleton.instance it is the same variable because it is static. It persists amongst instances. However, Swift does not support class variables yet, so when it does, that should quickly replace the Struct syntax that is common of singletons. It is very similar to static variables in java.
For example:
class Singleton {
var someVar = 0
struct Static {
static let instance = Singleton()
}
}
to create a singleton with a variable and the following to access it:
let foo = Singleton.Static.instance
foo.someVar = 11
let bar = Singleton.Static.instance
println(bar.someVar) // Prints 11
As you can see, bar.someVar was never set, and that is because the variable for the shared instance was set, so it prints 11.
What is the best practise to update Activity state on Place change? Imagine you have an activity with view that displays list of categories and list of items in the category. If different category is selected then app goes to new place with category ID. I want then to only refresh items and not to create new activity that also re-reads category list.
My current approach is like this:
public class AppActivityMapper implements ActivityMapper {
private ItemListActivity itemListActivity;
...
public Activity getActivity(final Place place) {
final Activity activity;
if (place instanceof ItemListPlace) {
if (itemListActivity == null) {
itemListActivity = new ItemListActivity((ItemListPlace) place, clientFactory);
} else {
itemListActivity.refresh((ItemListPlace) place);
}
activity = itemListActivity;
} else {
itemListActivity = null;
}
...
return activity;
}
...
Alternatives are:
listen to PlaceChangeEvents from within the activity (you can then use a FilteredActivityMapper and CachingActivityMapper for the caching of the activity in your ActivityMapper, so that it's reduced to only create a new activity when asked). †
have some component listen to PlaceChangeEvents and translate them to business-oriented events, the activity then listens to those events rather than PlaceChangeEvents, otherwise the same as above.
decouple the activity from the "screen", make the "screen" a singleton with a reset() method and call that method from the activity's start (possibly passing the category ID as an argument in this case). The "screen" being a singleton could then make sure to load the categories list only once.
in your case, you could also simply put the categories list in a shared cache, so that you don't have to reuse your activity by can create a new one, the categories list will be retrieved once and put in the cache, subsequent activity instances will just use what's in the cache. This is similar to the above, but simpler, and the cache could be used by other parts of the application.
I'd personally rather go with your approach though (with a small exception, see below), as it's the simplest/easiest. Decoupling the activity from the "screen" is also an option; the GWT Team started exploring this approach in the Expenses sample (decoupling the activity responsibility from the presenter responsibility with using MVP) without ever finishing it unfortunately.
Other than that, I don't think any best practice has really emerged for now.
†. I don't like coupling my activities with the places they're used with (I don't quite like the coupling for the goTo calls either, but haven't yet found a clean and simple alternative), so I'd rather not go with this option; and similarly, I'd not pass the place to the activity constructor and refresh method like you did, but rather extract the information out of the place and pass it to the activity (e.g. in your case, only give the category ID to the activity, not the ItemListPlace instance; I would then simply call setCategory in all cases, and not even pass the category ID to the constructor).
In my opinion,
The role of the ActivityMapper is to give you back an Activity from a Place.
The role of the ActivityManager is to start the Activity given back from the ActivityMapper and to stop the current one if different. In your case you would like to "update/refresh" the current Activity.
So I would modify the ActivityMapper so as it will allways give me back the same instance of Activity for a given type of Place. A good way to do so could be to use GIN and use the singleton scope ...in(Singleton.class) to inject your Activity.
If you do that, when changing the url, if the place stays the same (meaning your url has the same word after # and before :) so that the Type of your place stays the same, the ActivityMapper will give you back the same instance of Activity so the ActivityManager will do nothing on the Activity. Check l.126 of ActivityManager
if (currentActivity.equals(nextActivity)) {
return;
}
For me you have 2 options there. The first one, as Thomas said , is to listen to PlaceChangeEvent in your Activity. The new Place you will receive can have new parameters inside based on the new url given and you can "update/refresh" your Activity.
The second one, that I find more in line with the Activity/Place pattern is to modify the ActivityManager so that it calls an update(Place) method on the Activity when the Activity given back by the ActivityMapper is the same that the current Activity.
I haven't tried any of these solutions yet but I will soon ... I might be able to update that post at that time.
You can find more information in this article I wrote on my blog on that topic
Here is a little schema I made to help me understand the pattern, hope it will help :
I would not do any logic in my ActiviyMapper except returning an activity, by creating a new one or giving a previous one (or null). According to me, the mapper doesn't have to know about refresh() or what activities do.
If that, then the logic of 'refresh()' would be given to the activy through the place which holds a token. That token should be holding the information about either what is the state of the request (a new page, reload, an id, etc).
In the activity, first, it asks for the View, the one related to this activity (tip : a singleton given by a 'ClientFactory' is good practice), then it creates a presenter for that view, and bind them together.
Lastly, the activity will use the token from the place to provide any information about state to the presenter. And then, it adds the view in the page.
It's good to know by default, with places and activies, going to the same place doesn't do anything (no reload). But you can take care of it with token and activity-mapper easily.
Hope you'll find an adapted solution for you case. Goodluck.
in my ASP MVC 2 application I follow the strongly typed view pattern with specific viewmodels.
Im my application viewmodels are responsible for converting between models and viewmodels. My viewmodels I have a static ToViewModel(...) function which creates a new viewmodel for the corresponding model. So far I'm fine with that.
When want I edit a model, I send the created viewmodel over the wire and apply the changes to back to the model. For this purpose I use a static ToModel(...) method (also declared in the view model). Here the stubs for clarification:
public class UserViewModel
{
...
public static void ToViewModel(User user, UserViewModel userViewModel)
{
...
}
public static void toModel(User user, UserViewModel userViewModel)
{
???
}
}
So, now my "Problem":
Some models are complex (more than just strings, ints,...). So persistence logic has to be put somewhere.(With persistence logic I mean the decisions wheater to create a new DB entry or not,... not just rough CRUD - I use repositories for that)
I don't think it's a good idea to put it in my repositories, as repositories (in my understanding) should not be concerned with something that comes from the view.I thought about putting it in the ToModel(...) method but I'm not sure if thats the right approach.
Can you give me a hint?
Lg
warappa
Warappa - we use both a repository pattern and viewmodels as well.
However, we have two additonal layers:
service
task
The service layer deals with stuff like persisting relational data (complex object models) etc. The task layer deals with fancy linq correlations of the data and any extra manipulation that's required in order to present the correct data to the viewmodel.
Outwith the scope of this, we also have a 'filters' class per entity. This allows us to target extension methods per class where required.
simples... :)
In our MVC projects we have a seperate location for Converters.
We have two types of converter, an IConverter and an ITwoWayConverter (a bit more too it than that but I'm keeping it simple).
The ITwoWayConverter contains two primary methods ConvertTo and ConvertFrom which contain the logic for converting a model to a view model and visa versa.
This way you can create specific converts for switching between types such as:
public class ProductToProductViewModelConverter : ITwoWayConverter<Product,ProductViewModel>
We then inject the relevant converters into our controller as needed.
This means that your conversion from one type to another is not limited by a single converter (stored inside the model or wherever).
I'm working with the MVVM pattern + a simple ServiceLocator implementation, now to my problem how am I supposed to setup the services when the views are running in design time?
Iv tried this but it does not seem to work in VS 2010 or some thing, I know it worked on my old computer but on my new it does not. so does any one know a good alternative?
Edit: (On behalf of Merlyn Morgan-Graham)
Well what I'm trying to do is this, I have my view, ViewModel and services now the difference here is that I have 2 implementations of each service one for design time and one for run time.
for a better explanation look here.
If you want to decouple your view from your viewmodel, and your viewmodel from your model/dal (basically, if you want to use MVVM), then your view model and data model shouldn't know anything about design time. Design time only applies to the view.
This article shows a way to define your design time data via XML/XAML, so your code underneath doesn't have to know anything about it:
http://karlshifflett.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/visual-studio-2010-beta2-sample-data-project-templates/
After Edit: It turns out that you'll still have to use your view model for your existing XAML bindings to work. This will just populate the view model rather than having to create a new data model. I'm not sure, but there might be classes that allow you to use the WPF binding mechanism to take care of this... Views?
Resume Before Edit...:
As far as the solution in the article you linked first, the designer doesn't instantiate anything but your class, and the code it references. That means that assembly attributes won't be instantiated unless your view code somehow directly references them.
If you really want to couple your view models to your views during design time, and make it so that design time services are registered, then you have to place the service registration code in your view class, or a class the view class directly references.
To do that, you could use static constructors of your views to register your design time services. You could also write a static method on some other class (application?) to (conditionally) register the design time services. Then, call that method in the constructor of your views.
Or you could simply register them in the constructor for each of your views.
Basically, what you want to do is possible, but that method linked in the first article isn't. If you read farther in the comments, you'll see that his method is broken.
You may also want to question the idea of hooking your view model to your view during design time, because the MVVM pattern was made to avoid that sort of thing.
You usually don't need to access services at design-time... Typically, you don't even use your real ViewModels at design-time, you use dummy design data, as explained here. If you really need to use your real ViewModels, you can implement dummy versions of your services, and use them instead of the real services :
if (DesignerProperties.GetIsInDesignMode(new DependencyObject()))
{
// Design time
ServiceLocator.Instance.Register<IService1>(new DummyService1());
ServiceLocator.Instance.Register<IService2>(new DummyService2());
}
else
{
// Run time
ServiceLocator.Instance.Register<IService1>(new RealService1());
ServiceLocator.Instance.Register<IService2>(new RealService2());
}
Also I do agree to all who have concerns regarding the use of the service locator at design time, I do believe that this is a valid scenario in some use cases.
This is not a discussion on why/why not, this is simple the way it (almost) worked for me.
There is still a problem which I did not solve yet: this only works for one view at a time.
Create a simple bootstrapper for setting up your IoC of choice. Notice the ISupportInitialize interface.
public class Bootstrapper: ISupportInitialize
{
#region ISupportInitialize Members
public void BeginInit() { }
public void EndInit()
{
if (DesignerProperties.GetIsInDesignMode(new DependencyObject()))
Setup();
}
#endregion
public static void Setup() { SetupServiceLocator(); }
static void SetupServiceLocator()
{
ContainerBuilder builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<ConfigService>().As<IConfigService>().ExternallyOwned().SingleInstance();
IContainer container = builder.Build();
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => new AutofacServiceLocator(container));
}
}
Use the Bootstrapper as before for runtime mode, e.g.:
public partial class App : Application
{
protected override void OnStartup(StartupEventArgs e)
{
base.OnStartup(e);
Bootstrapper.Setup();
}
}
Additionally you need to add it to the application resources for design mode support:
<Application x:Class="MonitoringConfigurator.App"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:local="clr-namespace:MyBootstrapperNamespace"
StartupUri="MainWindow.xaml">
<Application.Resources>
<local:Bootstrapper x:Key="Bootstrapper" />
</Application.Resources>
</Application>