I am looking at replacing the default serializer for RPC in ASF. This involves implementing a few interfaces, one of which is passed between services communicating via RPC
public interface IServiceRemotingResponseMessageBody
{
void Set(object response);
object Get(Type paramType);
}
As the implementation needs to be serializable, the obvious ProtoBuf implementation is something like
[ProtoContract]
public class ProtoBufRemotingResponseBody : IServiceRemotingResponseMessageBody
{
[ProtoMember(1)]
public object Value { get; set; }
public void Set(object response)
{
Value = response;
}
public object Get(Type paramType)
{
return Value;
}
}
Unfortunately this fails miserably with
No serializer defined for type: System.Object
Is there a workaround here? System.Object has no contract, but the OOTB DataContract serializer can, as can MessagePack here, but these are not schematized which creates versioning headaches when using reliable collections. I have tried using a common base type, but Value can be IEnumerable<T> or T etc.
Can anyone help?
Thanks,
KH
At the moment, protobuf-net does not have good support for object, except via some messy hacks. The simplest to try (just to see if it works for your scenario) is to find the "dynamic types" flag on that proto-member attribute and set it to true. This library-specific hack burns some type metadata into to data to allow it to work with unknown types, but it is far from perfect.
The "better" fix here would involve me finding the time to implement the "any" feature (added to the Google library relatively recently, around the time of proto3 IIRC). This works broadly similarly, but would be implemented in a cross-library way.
Related
All the examples showcasing the CQRS pattern always have 0 or 1 parameter.
For example:
public class MyCommand
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
public class MyCommandHandler
{
public void Handle(MyCommand myCommand)
{ ... }
}
Assuming we are calling the handle directly is there is any reason besides the implementation details?
I'm aware of the advantages of having a single parameter, like encapsulating all the required data to perform the action and also making it easier to serialize if we have to work with Queues of Q/C, validation, etc..
But is it "wrong" to have multiple parameters in the handler?
But is it "wrong" to have multiple parameters in the handler?
No; it's tradeoffs.
When we have handlers with incompatible signatures, then composing handlers -- for instance, creating a handler with some cross cutting concerns -- takes more work because of the number of variations required.
No, it is not, I would say that it is sometimes advisable to use multiple parameters to separate concerns. Because you might have traceID, correlationID, or other types of technical data that you don't want to combine with business data. When you send a request, you are using headers, so when sending a message for handling, headers can be used as well
public class MyCommandHandler
{
public void Handle(MyCommand myCommand, MyHeader $header, MySecondHeader $secondHeader)
}
Also, if you don't want to inject dependencies in constructor for whatever reason, it is ok to inject them as parameters.
I'm looking for advice on this problem and whether service locator and class naming conventions are an ok solution (I tend to avoid these anti-patterns), and potential performance ramifications.
An app has a collection of objects implementing the same interface, distinguished by name. For example:
public interface IDog {
void Bark();
}
public class Pug: IDog {
public void Bark() {
// Pug bark implementation
}
}
public class Beagle: IDog {
public void Bark() {
// Beagle bark implementation
}
}
In the code, when you need an IDog, you only know a string name that is passed to you, for example "Pug" or "Beagle". In this case the string may contain special characters (example: <breed:pug />)
There are a few proposed solutions that have come about:
Using reflection, find the implementation needed where the string name == implementation name.
Add an addribute to each class, use reflection where string name == attribute property. Ex [DogBreed("Pug")]
Add a Breed property to the IDog interface. Inject a IList into a factory class, and have it retrieve the matching dog. Ex.
Private IList _dogs;
Public DogFactory(IList<IDog> dogs) {
_dogs = dogs;
}
Public IDog GetDog(string dogBreed) {
return _dogs.First(x => x.Breed == dogBreed);
}
1 and 2 use service locator. 1 uses an implied naming convention that you will only know by seeing the reflection code. 3 the concern is that all of the objects will be built in memory even though you only need a single implementation.
I personally have leaned towards #3 in the past. Object creation should be cheap. However, this is a legacy web app and objects down the chain may have heavy initialization cost. This application uses Unity for IoC.
Option 1.
This option sounds like the Partial Type Name Role Hint idiom. If you inject the list of candidates and find the appropriate Strategy among those candidates, it's just plain old Constructor Injection, and has nothing to do with Service Locator (which is a good thing).
Option 2.
This option sounds like the Metadata Role Hint idiom. Again, if you inject the list of candidates via the constructor, Service Locator is nowhere to be seen.
Option 3.
This options sounds like a variation of the Role Interface Role Hint idiom. Still supports use of good old Constructor Injection.
Personally, I tend to favour Partial Type Name Role Hint because this design doesn't impact the implementation of any business logic. All the selection logic becomes a pure infrastructure concern, and can be defined independently of the implementations and clients.
When it comes to the cost of composing the relevant object graphs, there are ways to address any issues in clean ways.
ConfigProperty.idPropertyMap is filled on the server side. (verified via log output)
Accessing it on the client side shows it's empty. :-( (verified via log output)
Is this some default behaviour? (I don't think so)
Is the problem maybe related to the inner class ConfigProperty.IdPropertyMap, java.util.HashMap usage, serialization or some field access modifier issue?
Thanks for your help
// the transfer object
public class ConfigProperty implements IsSerializable, Comparable {
...
static public class IdPropertyMap extends HashMap
implements IsSerializable
{
...
}
protected static IdPropertyMap idPropertyMap = new IdPropertyMap();
...
}
// the server service
public class ManagerServiceImpl extends RemoteServiceServlet implements
ManagerService
{
...
public IdPropertyMap getConfigProps(String timeToken)
throws ConfiguratorException
{
...
}
}
added from below after some good answers (thanks!):
answer bottom line: static field sync is not implemented/supported currently. someone/me would have to file a feature request
just my perspective (an fallen-in-love newby to GWT :-)):
I understand pretty good (not perfect! ;-)) the possible implications of "global" variable syncing (a dependency graph or usage of annotations could be useful).
But from a new (otherwise experienced Java EE/web) user it looks like this:
you create some myapp.shared.dto.MyClass class (dto = data transfer objects)
you add some static fields in it that just represent collections of those objects (and maybe some other DTOs)
you can also do this on the client side and all the other static methods work as well
only thing not working is synchronization (which is not sooo bad in the first place)
BUT: some provided annotation, let's say #Transfer static Collection<MyClass> myObjList; would be handy, since I seem to know the impact and benefits that this would bring.
In my case it's rather simple since the client is more static, but would like to have this data without explicitely implementing it if the GWT framework could do it.
static variables are purely class variable It has nothing to do with individual instances. serialization applies only to object.
So ,your are getting always empty a ConfigProperty.idPropertyMap
The idea of RPC is not that you can act as though the client and the server are exactly the same JVM, but that they can share the objects that you pass over the wire. To send a static field over the wire, from the server to the client, the object stored in that field must be returned from the RPC method.
Static properties are not serialized and sent over the wire, because they do not belong to a single object, but to the class itself.
public class MyData implements Serializable {
protected String name;//sent over the wire, each MyData has its own name
protected String key;
protected static String masterKey;//All objects on the server or client
// share this, it cannot be sent over RPC. Instead, another RPC method
// could access it
}
Note, however, that it will only be that one instance which will be shared - if something else on the server changes that field, all clients which have asked for a copy will need to be updated
Sorry to ask sich a generic question, but I've been studying these and, outside of say the head programming conveying what member MUST be in a class, I just don't see any benefits.
There are two (basic) parts to object oriented programming that give newcomers trouble; the first is inheritance and the second is composition. These are the toughest to 'get'; and once you understand those everything else is just that much easier.
What you're referring to is composition - e.g., what does a class do? If you go the inheritance route, it derives from an abstract class (say Dog IS A Animal) . If you use composition, then you are instituting a contract (A Car HAS A Driver/Loan/Insurance). Anyone that implements your interface must implement the methods of that interface.
This allows for loose coupling; and doesn't tie you down into the inheritance model where it doesn't fit.
Where inheritance fits, use it; but if the relationship between two classes is contractual in nature, or HAS-A vs. IS-A, then use an interface to model that part.
Why Use Interfaces?
For a practical example, let's jump into a business application. If you have a repository; you'll want to make the layer above your repository those of interfaces. That way if you have to change anything in the way the respository works, you won't affect anything since they all obey the same contracts.
Here's our repository:
public interface IUserRepository
{
public void Save();
public void Delete(int id);
public bool Create(User user);
public User GetUserById(int id);
}
Now, I can implement that Repository in a class:
public class UserRepository : IRepository
{
public void Save()
{
//Implement
}
public void Delete(int id)
{
//Implement
}
public bool Create(User user)
{
//Implement
}
public User GetUserById(int id)
{
//Implement
}
}
This separates the Interface from what is calling it. I could change this Class from Linq-To-SQL to inline SQL or Stored procedures, and as long as I implemented the IUserRepository interface, no one would be the wiser; and best of all, there are no classes that derive from my class that could potentially be pissed about my change.
Inheritance and Composition: Best Friends
Inheritance and Composition are meant to tackle different problems. Use each where it fits, and there are entire subsets of problems where you use both.
I was going to leave George to point out that you can now consume the interface rather than the concrete class. It seems like everyone here understands what interfaces are and how to define them, but most have failed to explain the key point of them in a way a student will easily grasp - and something that most courses fail to point out instead leaving you to either grasp at straws or figure it out for yourself so I'll attempt to spell it out in a way that doesn't require either. So hopefully you won't be left thinking "so what, it still seems like a waste of time/effort/code."
public interface ICar
{
public bool EngineIsRunning{ get; }
public void StartEngine();
public void StopEngine();
public int NumberOfWheels{ get; }
public void Drive(string direction);
}
public class SportsCar : ICar
{
public SportsCar
{
Console.WriteLine("New sports car ready for action!");
}
public bool EngineIsRunning{ get; protected set; }
public void StartEngine()
{
if(!EngineIsRunning)
{
EngineIsRunning = true;
Console.WriteLine("Engine is started.");
}
else
Console.WriteLine("Engine is already running.");
}
public void StopEngine()
{
if(EngineIsRunning)
{
EngineIsRunning = false;
Console.WriteLine("Engine is stopped.");
}
else
Console.WriteLine("Engine is already stopped.");
}
public int NumberOfWheels
{
get
{
return 4;
}
}
public void Drive(string direction)
{
if (EngineIsRunning)
Console.WriteLine("Driving {0}", direction);
else
Console.WriteLine("You can only drive when the engine is running.");
}
}
public class CarFactory
{
public ICar BuildCar(string car)
{
switch case(car)
case "SportsCar" :
return Activator.CreateInstance("SportsCar");
default :
/* Return some other concrete class that implements ICar */
}
}
public class Program
{
/* Your car type would be defined in your app.config or some other
* mechanism that is application agnostic - perhaps by implicit
* reference of an existing DLL or something else. My point is that
* while I've hard coded the CarType as "SportsCar" in this example,
* in a real world application, the CarType would not be known at
* design time - only at runtime. */
string CarType = "SportsCar";
/* Now we tell the CarFactory to build us a car of whatever type we
* found from our outside configuration */
ICar car = CarFactory.BuildCar(CarType);
/* And without knowing what type of car it was, we work to the
* interface. The CarFactory could have returned any type of car,
* our application doesn't care. We know that any class returned
* from the CarFactory has the StartEngine(), StopEngine() and Drive()
* methods as well as the NumberOfWheels and EngineIsRunning
* properties. */
if (car != null)
{
car.StartEngine();
Console.WriteLine("Engine is running: {0}", car.EngineIsRunning);
if (car.EngineIsRunning)
{
car.Drive("Forward");
car.StopEngine();
}
}
}
As you can see, we could define any type of car, and as long as that car implements the interface ICar, it will have the predefined properties and methods that we can call from our main application. We don't need to know what type of car is - or even the type of class that was returned from the CarFactory.BuildCar() method. It could return an instance of type "DragRacer" for all we care, all we need to know is that DragRacer implements ICar and we can carry on life as normal.
In a real world application, imagine instead IDataStore where our concrete data store classes provide access to a data store on disk, or on the network, some database, thumb drive, we don't care what - all we would care is that the concrete class that is returned from our class factory implements the interface IDataStore and we can call the methods and properties without needing to know about the underlying architecture of the class.
Another real world implication (for .NET at least) is that if the person who coded the sports car class makes changes to the library that contains the sports car implementation and recompiles, and you've made a hard reference to their library you will need to recompile - whereas if you've coded your application against ICar, you can just replace the DLL with their new version and you can carry on as normal.
So that a given class can inherit from multiple sources, while still only inheriting from a single parent class.
Some programming languages (C++ is the classic example) allow a class to inherit from multiple classes; in this case, interfaces aren't needed (and, generally speaking, don't exist.)
However, when you end up in a language like Java or C# where multiple-inheritance isn't allowed, you need a different mechanism to allow a class to inherit from multiple sources - that is, to represent more than one "is-a" relationships. Enter Interfaces.
So, it lets you define, quite literally, interfaces - a class implementing a given interface will implement a given set of methods, without having to specify anything about how those methods are actually written.
Maybe this resource is helpful: When to Use Interfaces
It allows you to separate the implementation from the definition.
For instance I can define one interface that one section of my code is coded against - as far as it is concerned it is calling members on the interface. Then I can swap implementations in and out as I wish - if I want to create a fake version of the database access component then I can.
Interfaces are the basic building blocks of software components
In Java, interfaces allow you to refer any class that implements the interface. This is similar to subclassing however there are times when you want to refer to classes from completely different hierarchies as if they are the same type.
Speaking from a Java standpoint, you can create an interface, telling any classes that implement said interface, that "you MUST implement these methods" but you don't introduce another class into the hierarchy.
This is desireable because you may want to guarantee that certain mechanisms exist when you want objects of different bases to have the same code semantics (ie same methods that are coded as appropriate in each class) for some purpose, but you don't want to create an abstract class, which would limit you in that now you can't inherit another class.
just a thought... i only tinker with Java. I'm no expert.
Please see my thoughts below. 2 different devices need to receive messages from our computer. one resides across the internet and uses http as a transport protocol. the other sits 10 feet away, connect via USB.
Note, this syntax is pseudo-code.
interface writeable
{
void open();
void write();
void close();
}
class A : HTTP_CONNECTION implements writeable
{
//here, opening means opening an HTTP connection.
//maybe writing means to assemble our message for a specific protocol on top of
//HTTP
//maybe closing means to terminate the connection
}
class B : USB_DEVICE implements writeable
{
//open means open a serial connection
//write means write the same message as above, for a different protocol and device
//close means to release USB object gracefully.
}
Interfaces create a layer insulation between a consumer and a supplier. This layer of insulation can be used for different things. But overall, if used correctly they reduce the dependency density (and the resulting complexity) in the application.
I wish to support Electron's answer as the most valid answer.
Object oriented programming facilitates the declaration of contracts.
A class declaration is the contract. The contract is a commitment from the class to provide features according to types/signatures that have been declared by the class. In the common oo languages, each class has a public and a protected contract.
Obviously, we all know that an interface is an empty unfulfilled class template that can be allowed to masquerade as a class. But why have empty unfulfilled class contracts?
An implemented class has all of its contracts spontaneously fulfilled.
An abstract class is a partially fulfilled contract.
A class spontaneously projects a personality thro its implemented features saying it is qualified for a certain job description. However, it also could project more than one personality to qualify itself for more than one job description.
But why should a class Motorcar not present its complete personality honestly rather than hide behind the curtains of multiple-personalities? That is because, a class Bicycle, Boat or Skateboard that wishes to present itself as much as a mode of Transport does not wish to implement all the complexities and constraints of a Motorcar. A boat needs to be capable of water travel which a Motorcar needs not. Then why not give a Motorcar all the features of a Boat too - of course, the response to such a proposal would be - are you kiddin?
Sometimes, we just wish to declare an unfulfilled contract without bothering with the implementation. A totally unfulfilled abstract class is simply an interface. Perhaps, an interface is akin to the blank legal forms you could buy from a stationary shop.
Therefore, in an environment that allows multiple inheritances, interfaces/totally-abstract-classes are useful when we just wish to declare unfulfilled contracts that someone else could fulfill.
In an environment that disallows multiple inheritances, having interfaces is the only way to allow an implementing class to project multiple personalities.
Consider
interface Transportation
{
takePassengers();
gotoDestination(Destination d);
}
class Motorcar implements Transportation
{
cleanWindshiedl();
getOilChange();
doMillionsOtherThings();
...
takePassengers();
gotoDestination(Destination d);
}
class Kayak implements Transportation
{
paddle();
getCarriedAcrossRapids();
...
takePassengers();
gotoDestination(Destination d);
}
An activity requiring Transportation has to be blind to the millions alternatives of transportation. Because it just wants to call
Transportation.takePassengers or
Transportation.gotoDestination
because it is requesting for transportation however it is fulfilled. This is modular thinking and programming, because we don't want to restrict ourselves to a Motorcar or Kayak for transportation. If we restricted to all the transportation we know, we would need to spend a lot of time finding out all the current transportation technologies and see if it fits into our plan of activities.
We also do not know that in the future, a new mode of transport called AntiGravityCar would be developed. And after spending so much time unnecessarily accommodating every mode of transport we possibly know, we find that our routine does not allow us to use AntiGravityCar. But with a specific contract that is blind any technology other than that it requires, not only do we not waste time considering all sorts of behaviours of various transports, but any future transport development that implements the Transport interface can simply include itself into the activity without further ado.
None of the answers yet mention the key word: substitutability. Any object which implements interface Foo may be substituted for "a thing that implements Foo" in any code that needs the latter. In many frameworks, an object must give a single answer to the question "What type of thing are you", and a single answer to "What is your type derived from"; nonetheless, it may be helpful for a type to be substitutable for many different kinds of things. Interfaces allow for that. A VolkswagonBeetleConvertible is derived from VolkswagonBeetle, and a FordMustangConvertible is derived from FordMustang. Both VolkswagonBeetleConvertible and FordMustangConvertible implement IOpenableTop, even though neither class' parent type does. Consequently, the two derived types mentioned can be substituted for "a thing which implements IOpenableTop".
I want to handle different types of docs the same way in my application
Therefore:
I have a generic interface like this.
public interface IDocHandler<T>where T: class
{
T Document { get;set;}
void Load(T doc);
void Load(string PathToDoc);
void Execute();
void Execute(T doc);
}
And for different types of documents I implement this interface.
for example:
public class FinanceDocumentProcessor:IDocumentHandler<ReportDocument>
{}
public class MarketingDocumentProcessor:IDocumentHandler<MediaDocument>
{}
Then I can do of course something like this:
IDocumentHandler<ReportDocument> docProc= new FinanceDocumentProcessor();
It would be interessting to know how I could inject T at runtime to make the line above loosly coupled...
IDocumentHandler<ReportDocument> docProc = container.resolve("FinanceDocumentProcessor());
but I want to decide per Configuration wether I want to have my FinanceDomcumentProcessor or my MarketingDocumentProcessor... therefore I would have to inject T on the left site, too ...
Since I have to use c# 2.0 I can not use the magic word "var" which would help a lot in this case... but how can I design this to be open and flexible...
Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for all the comments but I have another example for my challenge (maybe I am using the wrong design for that) ...
But I give it a try: Same situation but different Explanation
Example Image I have:
ReportingService, Crystal, ListAndLabel
Three different Reporting Document types. I have a generic Handler IReportHandler<T> (would be the same as above) this Handler provides all the functionality for handling a report Document.
for Example
ChrystalReportHandler:IReportHandler<CrystalReportDocument>
Now I want to use a Framework like Unity (or some else framework) for dependency injection to decide via configuration whether I want to use Crystal, Reportingservices or List and Label.
When I specify my mapping I can inject my ChrystalReportHandler but how can I inject T on the left side or in better word The Type of ReportDocument.
IReportHandler<T (this needs also to be injected)> = IOContainer.Resolve(MyMappedType here)
my Problem is the left Site of course because it is coupled to the type but I have my mapping ... would it be possible to generate a object based on Mapping and assign the mapped type ? or basically inject T on the left side, too?
Or is this approach not suitable for this situation.
I think that with your current design, you are creating a "dependency" between IDocumentHandler and a specific Document (ReportDocument or MediaDocument) and so if you want to use IDocumentHandler<ReportDocument or MediaDocument> directly in your code you must assume that your container will give you just that. The container shouldn't be responsible for resolving the document type in this case.
Would you consider changing your design like this?
public interface IDocumentHandler
{
IDocument Document { get; set; }
void Load(IDocument doc);
void Load(string PathToDoc);
void Execute();
void Execute(IDocument doc);
}
public class IDocument { }
public class ReportDocument : IDocument { }
public class MediaDocument : IDocument { }
public class FinanceDocumentProcessor : IDocumentHandler { }
public class MarketingDocumentProcessor : IDocumentHandler { }
If I understand you correctly, you have two options.
if you have interface IDocHandler and multiple classes implementing it, you have to register each type explicitly, like this:
container.AddComponent>(typeof(FooHandler));
if you have one class DocHandler you can register with component using open generic type
container.AddComponent(typeof(IDocHandler<>), typeof(DocHandler<>));
then each time you resolve IDocHandler you will get an instance of DocHandler and when you resolve IDocHandler you'll get DocHandler
hope that helps
You need to use a non-generic interface on the left side.
Try:
public interface IDocumentHandler { }
public interface IDocumentHandler<T> : IDocumentHandler { }
This will create two interfaces. Put everything common, non-T-specific into the base interface, and everything else in the generic one.
Since the code that you want to resolve an object into, that you don't know the type of processor for, you couldn't call any of the T-specific code there anyway, so you wouldn't lose anything by using the non-generic interface.
Edit: I notice my answer has been downvoted. It would be nice if people downvoting things would leave a comment why they did so. I don't care about the reputation point, that's just minor noise at this point, but if there is something seriously wrong with the answer, then I'd like to know so that I can either delete the answer (if it's way off target) or correct it.
Now in this case I suspect that either the original questionee has downvoted it, and thus either haven't posted enough information, so that he's actually asking about something other than what he's asked about, or he didn't quite understand my answer, which is understandable since it was a bit short, or that someone who didn't understand it downvoted it, again for the same reason.
Now, to elaborate.
You can't inject anything "on the left side". That's not possible. That code have to compile, be correct, and be 100% "there" at compile-time. You can't say "we'll tell you what T is at runtime" for that part. It just isn't possible.
So the only thing you're left with is to remove the T altogether. Make the code that uses the dependency not depend on T, at all. Or, at the very least, use reflection to discover what T is and do things based on that knowledge.
That's all you can do. You can't make the code on the left side change itself depending on what you return from a method on the right side.
It isn't possible.
Hence my answer.