These words are difficult to search online, so I can't find any information on them besides the docs, which seems to me to have almost the same description (specially for as and to).
What's the difference between as(), to() and compose() in RxJava2? When should I use any of them?
to and as are practically the same. The difference is that to uses the more broad Function interface and as uses the dedicated XConverter interface. The former can't be implemented for multiple reactive types. Issue, PR.
The difference between to/as and compose is that the former lets you turn the sequence into arbitrary result type during assembly time whereas the latter can only turn into the same reactive type but possibly different type argument(s).
Related
I used FEST-Assert and moved to AssertJ after it stopped development.
Recently I was pointed to Google repository with another assertions library Truth (http://google.github.io/truth/).
Reading the examples I can not find any advantage of start using it over AssertJ. So it is just matter of taste what to use. But maybe I missed the point, did I?
From one of their comments at GitHub:
The core difference is that the design of Truth includes two specific
areas of extensibility - that of a strategy for proposition failure -
such that a "subject" for Integers, or a subject for Strings can be
re-used in the context of completely different results for failure. A
notable example is the distinction between JUnit's use of
AssertionError and it's AssumptionViolationException. Truth lets you
use the same proposition classes for both.
The other area of flexibility is the ability to create new
assertion/proposition types and hook them in without declaring
possibly conflicting static methods to import. This can be for new
types (say, adding protobufs) or for new uses of existing types (say,
Strings that are treated as Uris). This is the assertAbout() feature.
Other than that, Truth is very similar to AssertJ, since it was
inspired by FEST, of which AssertJ is a fork of the 2.0 development
line.
To sum up, Truth is designed to be a bit more extensible and flexible, but AssertJ will be great (possibly the greatest) for assertions on standard types.
I am looking at this language from the Swift GeneratorType documentation and I'm having a hard time understanding it:
Any code that uses multiple generators (or for...in loops) over a single sequence should have static knowledge that the specific sequence is multi-pass, either because its concrete type is known or because it is constrained to CollectionType. Also, the generators must be obtained by distinct calls to the sequence's generate() method, rather than by copying.
What does it mean for a sequence to be "multi-pass"? This language seems quite important, but I can't find a good explanation for it. I understand, for example, the concept of a "multi-pass compiler", but I'm unsure if the concepts are similar or related...
Also, I have searched SO for other posts that answer this question. I have found this one, which makes the following statement in the C++ context:
The difference between algorithms that copy their iterators and those that do not is that the former are termed "multipass" algorithms, and require their iterator type to satisfy ForwardIterator, while the latter are single-pass and only require InputIterator.
But the meaning of that isn't entirely clear to me either, and I'm not sure if the concept is the same in Swift.
Any insight from those wiser than me would be much appreciated.
A "multi-pass" sequence is one that can be iterated over multiple times via a for...in loop or by using any number of generators (constructed via generate())
The text explains you would know a sequence is multi-pass because you
know its type (perhaps a class you designed) or
know it conforms to CollectionType. (for example, sets and arrays)
I'm having a hard time deciphering Scala API documentation.
For example, I've defined a timestamp for use in a database.
def postedDate = column[Timestamp]("posted_date", O NotNull, O Default new Timestamp(Calendar.getInstance.getTimeInMillis), O DBType("timestamp"))
If I hadn't read several examples, of which none were in the API doc, how could I construct this statement? From the Column documentation how could I know the parameters?
I guessed it had something to do with TimestampTypeMapperDelegate but it is still not crystal clear how to use it.
The first thing to note from the scaladoc for Column is that it is abstract, so you probably want to deal directly with one if its subclasses. For example, NamedColumn.
Other things to note are that it has a type parameter and the constructor takes an implicit argument of a TypeMapper of the same parameter type. The docs for TypeMapper provide an example of how to create a custom one, but if you look at the subclasses, there are plenty of provided ones (such as timestamp). The fact that the argument is declared as implicit suggests that there could be one in scope, and if so, it will automatically be used as the parameter without explicitly stating that. If there isn't an implicit in scope that satisfies the requirement, you'll have to provide it.
The next think to note is that a TypeMapper is a trait that extends a function with an argument of a BasicProfile and a TypeMapperDelegate result. Basically what's going on here is the definition of a type mapper is separated from the implementation. This is done to support multiple flavors of database. If look at the subclasses of BasicProfile, it will become apparent that ScalaQuery supports quite a few, and as we know, their implementations are sometimes quite different.
If you chase the docs for a while, you end up at the BasicTypeMapperDelegates trait that has a bunch of vals in it with delegates for each of the basic types (including timestamps).
BasicTable defines a method called column (which you've found), and the intent of the column method is to shield you from having to know anything about TypeMappers and Delegates as long as you are using standard types.
So, I guess to answer your question about whether there is enough information in the API docs, I'd personally say yes, but the docs could be enhanced with better descriptions of classes, objects, traits and methods.
All that said, I've always found that leveraging examples, API docs, and even the source code of the project provides a robust way of getting up to speed on most open source projects. To be quite blunt, many of these projects (including ScalaQuery) have saved me countless hours of work, but probably cost the author(s) countless hours of personal time to create and make available. These are not necessarily commercial products, and we as consumers shouldn't hold them to the same standards that we hold for-fee products. If you find docs inadequate, contribute!
In this video from Google IO 2009, the presenter very quickly says that signatures of methods should return concrete types instead of interfaces.
From what I heard in the video, this has something to do with the GWT Java-to-Javascript compiler.
What's the reason behind this choice ?
What does the interface in the method signature do to the compiler ?
What methods can return interfaces instead of concrete types, and which are better off returning concrete instances ?
This has to do with the gwt-compiler, as you say correctly. EDIT: However, as Daniel noted in a comment below, this does not apply to the gwt-compiler in general but only when using GWT-RPC.
If you declare List instead of ArrayList as the return type, the gwt-compiler will include the complete List-hierarchy (i.e. all types implementing List) in your compiled code. If you use ArrayList, the compiler will only need to include the ArrayList hierarchy (i.e. all types implementing ArrayList -- which usually is just ArrayList itself). Using an interface instead of a concrete class you will pay a penalty in terms of compile time and in the size of your generated code (and thus the amount of code each user has to download when running your app).
You were also asking for the reason: If you use the interface (instead of a concrete class) the compiler does not know at compile time which implementations of these interfaces are going to be used. Thus, it includes all possible implementations.
Regarding your last question: all methods CAN be declared to return interface (that is what you ment, right?). However, the above penalty applies.
And by the way: As I understand it, this problem is not restricted to methods. It applies to all type declarations: variables, parameters. Whenever you use an interface to declare something, the compiler will include the complete hierarchy of sub-interfaces and implementing classes. (So obviously if you declare your own interface with only one or two implementing classes then you are not incurring a big penalty. That is how I use interfaces in GWT.)
In short: use concrete classes whenever possible.
(Small suggestion: it would help if you gave the time stamp when you refer to a video.)
This and other performance tips were presented at Google IO 2011 - High-performance GWT.
At about the 7 min point the speak addresses 'RPC Type Explosion':
For some reason I thought the GWT compiler would optimize it away again but it appears I was mistaken.
Maybe its because I've been coding around two semesters now, but the major stumbling block that I'm having at this point is converting the professor's project description and requirements to actual code. Since I'm currently in Algorithms 101, I basically do a bottom-up process, starting with a blank whiteboard and draw out the object and method interactions, then translate that into classes and code.
But now the prof has tossed interfaces and abstract classes into the mix. Intellectually, I can recognize how they work, but am stubbing my toes figuring out how to use these new tools with the current project (simulating a web server).
In my professors own words, mapping the abstract description to Java code is the real trick. So what steps are best used to go from English (or whatever your language is) to computer code? How do you decide where and when to create an interface, or use an abstract class?
So what steps are best used to go from English (or whatever your language is) to computer code?
Experience is what teaches you how to do this. If it's not coming naturally yet (and don't feel bad if it doesn't, because it takes a long time!), there are some questions you can ask yourself:
What are the main concepts of the system? How are they related to each other? If I was describing this to someone else, what words and phrases would I use? These thoughts will help you decide what classes are useful to think about.
What sorts of behaviors do these things have? Are there natural dependencies between them? (For example, a LineItem isn't relevant or meaningful without the context of an Order, nor is an Engine much use without a Car.) How do the behaviors affect the state of the other objects? Do they communicate with each other, and if so, in what way? These thoughts will help you develop the public interfaces of your classes.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, of course. For more about this thought process in general, see Eric Evans's excellent book, Domain-Driven Design.
How do you decide where and when to create an interface, or use an abstract class?
There's no hard and fast prescriptions; again, experience is the best guide here. That said, there's certainly some rules of thumb you can follow:
If several unrelated or significantly different object types all provide the same kind of functionality, use an interface. For example, if the Steerable interface has a Steer(Vector bearing) method, there may be lots of different things that can be steered: Boats, Airplanes, CargoShips, Cars, et cetera. These are completely unrelated things. But they all share the common interface of being able to be steered.
In general, try to favor an interface instead of an abstract base class. This way you can define a single implementation which implements N interfaces. In the case of Java, you can only have one abstract base class, so you're locked into a particular inheritance hierarchy once you say that a class inherits from another one.
Whenever you don't need implementation from a base class, definitely favor an interface over an abstract base class. This would also be handy if you're operating in a language where inheritance doesn't apply. For example, in C#, you can't have a struct inherit from a base class.
In general...
Read a lot of other people's code. Open source projects are great for that. Respect their licenses though.
You'll never get it perfect. It's an iterative process. Don't be discouraged if you don't get it right.
Practice. Practice. Practice.
Research often. Keep tackling more and more challenging projects / designs. Even if there are easy ones around.
There is no magic bullet, or algorithm for good design.
Nowadays I jump in with a design I believe is decent and work from that.
When the time is right I'll implement understanding the result will have to refactored ( rewritten ) sooner rather than later.
Give this project your best shot, keep an eye out for your mistakes and how things should've been done after you get back your results.
Keep doing this, and you'll be fine.
What you should really do is code from the top-down, not from the bottom-up. Write your main function as clearly and concisely as you can using APIs that you have not yet created as if they already existed. Then, you can implement those APIs in similar fashion, until you have functions that are only a few lines long. If you code from the bottom-up, you will likely create a whole lot of stuff that you don't actually need.
In terms of when to create an interface... pretty much everything should be an interface. When you use APIs that don't yet exist, assume that every concrete class is an implementation of some interface, and use a declared type that is indicative of that interface. Your inheritance should be done solely with interfaces. Only create concrete classes at the very bottom when you are providing an implementation. I would suggest avoiding abstract classes and just using delegation, although abstract classes are also reasonable when two different implementations differ only slightly and have several functions that have a common implementation. For example, if your interface allows one to iterate over elements and also provides a sum function, the sum function is a trivial to implement in terms of the iteration function, so that would be a reasonable use of an abstract class. An alternative would be to use the decorator pattern in that case.
You might also find the Google Techtalk "How to Design a Good API and Why it Matters" to be helpful in this regard. You might also be interested in reading some of my own software design observations.
Also, for the coming future, you can keep in pipeline to read the basics on domain driven design to align yourself to the real world scenarios - it gives a solid foundation for requirements mapping to the real classes.