I have a question, I'm trying to create interface which is implemented by a class. The main idea is a communication for frot-end and back-end by that generated UUID, when new entity it would generate the UUID and if it is not new it would use existing.
public interface GuidGenerator {
default String handleGUID(String idGuid){
return idGuid!= null ? idGuid : UUID.randomUUID().toString();
}
}
What should i change in order to make that this interface method would generate UUID each time the entity is created ?
And which is better to use in this situation static or default method for interface ?
Why don't you use an abstract class?
It's like an interface that implements some methods and leaves some to the subclass to implement.
See here:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/abstract.html
Related
I am trying to use the in built methods of MongoRepository<T,ID> interface to interact with mongo.
interface MovieRepository : MongoRepository<Movie, String> {
}
But when I try to implement the "MovieRepository" using class. Its asking me to implement all the member functions defined in "MongoRepository" as well
class ControllerClass(private val MovieRepository: MovieRepository): MovieRepository {}
This is what i get when i initialize my controller class:
Class 'ControllerClass' is not abstract and does not implement abstract member public abstract fun <S : Movie!> save(entity: S): S
Is there any way so that i do not need to defined all those MongoRepository's functions again in my ControllerClass?
You don't usually implement a repository interface yourself: you let Spring do it for you!
First, you define your interface, as you have done:
interface MovieRepository : MongoRepository<Movie, String> {
// Add any abstract methods you'll need here…
}
Then, you autowire a property of that type. In Kotlin, you can either do it in the primary constructor, e.g.:
#Controller
class ControllerClass #Autowired constructor(
private val movieRepository: MovieRepository
) {
// …code…
}
Or as a plain property. (In this case, because you can't specify an initial value, you have to make the property a var; it must either be nullable — requiring !! everywhere you use it — or, better, make it lateinit.)
#Controller
class ControllerClass {
#Autowired private lateinit var movieRepository: MovieRepository
// …code…
}
Spring will then create some synthetic class implementing that interface, and set your property to it. (You don't need to worry about how it does that — just as you don't need to worry about all the other magic it does, much of which involves creating synthetic subclasses. That's why Spring objects generally need to be made open — and why there's a Spring plugin which takes care of doing that.)
It's more usual to use the repository in a service class, and then call that from your controller class — at least, that pattern tends to scale better, and be easier to follow and to test. But doing so directly should work too. Either way, you can call whichever repository method you need, e.g. movieRepository.findAll().
See the Spring docs; they use Java, but it's mostly trivial to convert to Kotlin.
I have a Identity class that is extended by two classes StringIdentity and GuidIdentity. I want to use them in Objects as Property and save them in a MongoDb. For Example a class would look like this:
public class MyEvent : IDomainEvent
{
public MyEvent(GuidIdentity entityId)
{
EntityId = entityId;
}
public Identity EntityId { get; }
}
IDomainEvent forces me to implement the Identity Property, so I can (and do not want to) change the property type to GuidIdentity.
When I deserialize my class I get an exception like this:
Creator map for class Microwave.Eventstores.UnitTests. MyEvent has 1
arguments, but none are configured.
Which seems logical according to the .net driver doku, as my property does not match the type of the parameter and therefore can not be serialized. I had the solution to use the Identity as constructor parameter or make the constructor private and instantiate the class with a static Create method that takes the GuidIdentity as parameter. I also messed around with the BsonClassMap, but I really do not want to write all this kind of duplicate code for every class that implements IDomainEvent
So is there a way to tell the .net Driver to use the concrete class from the constructor instead of the more general PropertyType for all Types? Some kind of silver bullet solution? ;)
I am very new to mongodb so I am not aware of all the tricks that come with it, maybe someone can help me out here.
I am playing around building some buildingblocks based on database tables.
So I've created an UsersManager and a ValidationManager both based on the EDMX "templates".
I'd really like to loose couple those two components with MEF. But therefore i need to create Interfaces of the entityobjects exposed in the ValidationManager.
Is there an easy way of creating those Interfaces, in that manner i can still use the EDMX generated classes?
Thanx,
Paul
Using an example of a database with a Product Table, is this what you're trying to achieve....
but still use generated entity classes (using either the standard EF generator or another POCO generator of some sort).
I'm not sure - as you mention MEF and I don't see it being directly related.
The generated entity classes are partial classes which will allow you to extend the generated class which in this case you want to extend to implement an interface.
Presuming the following interface is going to be used to introduce the layer of abstraction...
public interface IEntity {
public bool IsDeleted { get; set; }
}
Create a new class file with and extended Product class...
public partial class Product : IEntity {
public bool IsDeleted {
get {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
set {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
}
You have now extended your generated entity Product with the partial class custom code - and you can use it as normal through EF.
Now instead of your UserManager and ValidationManager classes having a hard reference to Product, instead they'll only have reference to IEntity.
If I didn't understand the question, please provide more details on exactly it is you want to do.
I am very new to GWT.
I am using ext-gwt widgets.
I found many places in my office code containing like,
class A extends BaseModel{
private UserAccountDetailsDto userAccountDetailsDto = null;
//SETTER & GETTER IN BASEMODEL WAY
}
Also, the DTO reference is unused.
public class UserAccountDetailsDto implements Serializable{
private Long userId=null;
private String userName=null;
private String userAccount=null;
private String userPermissions=null;
//NORMAL SETTER & GETTER
}
Now, I am able to get the result from GWT Server side Code and things Work fine, but when I comment the DTO reference inside the class A, I am not getting any Result.
Please explain me the need of that.
Thanks
Well the problem is in implementation of GXT BaseModel and GWT-RPC serialization.
BaseModel is based around special GXT map, RpcMap. This map has defined special serialization rules, which let's avoid RPC type explosion, but as side effect, only some simple types stored in map will be serialized. E.g. you can put any type inside the map, but if you serialize/deserialize it, only values of type Integer, String ,Double,Byte, Float and Short (and arrays of this types) will be present. So the meaning behind putting reference to the DTO inside BaseModel, is to tell GWT-RPC that this type is also have to be serialized.
Detailed explanation
Basically GWT-RPC works like this:
When you define an interface for service, GWT-RPC analyzes all the classes used in parameters/ return type, to create serializers/deserializers. If you return something like Map<Object,Object> from your service, GWT-RPC will have to create a serializer for each class which implements Map and Serializable interfaces, but also it will generate serializers for each class which implements Serializable. In the end it is quite a bad situation, because the size of your compiled js file will be much biggger. This situation is called GWT-RPC type explosion.
So, in the BaseModel, all values are stored in RpcMap. And RpcMap has custom written serializer (RpcMap_CustomFieldSerializer you can see it's code if you interested how to create such things), so it doesn't cause the problem described above. But since it has custom serializer GWT dosn't know which custom class have been put inside RpcMap, and it doesn't generate serializers for them. So when you put some field into your BaseModel class, gwt knows that it might need to be able to serialize this class, so it will generate all the required stuff for this class.
Porting GXT2 Application code using BaseModel to GXT3 Model is uphill task. It would be more or less completely rewrite on model side with ModelProviders from GXT3 providing some flexibility. Any code that relies on Model's events, store, record etc are in for a rewrite.
Suppose I have some Interface like :
public interface IIconComponent
{
// statements ...
}
then I am implementing this interface within my class as below
public class IconComponent : IIconcomponent
{
// implementing the interface statements ..
}
and creating a Table in mvc3 like:
public class IconDBContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<IIconComponent> Icon {get; set;} //Is this statement possible
}
That is making the set of objects of interface type for storing the class IconComponent objects in the table. How to do this in MVC3 ?
Does I have to implement some model-binder for this ? or, there exists some other method ?
Thanking you,
EF doesn't support interfaces. DbSet must be defined with the real implementation. Once you change it to use implementation your actions will most probably use it as well because there will be no reason to work with abstraction.
Why would you use entity framework is you're creating abstraction layer on top of it, it's as you're not using entity framework at all and because of that entity framework is not able to work with interfaces.
If you really need to, you can let your Entity Framework classes implement interfaces. With POCO's it's straightforward, with edmx you can make partial classes that contain the derivation from the interface. However, as said by Ladislav, something like DbSet<IIconComponent> is not possible.
I can imagine scenarios where you would want to use this, e.g. dealing with other application components that only accept specific interfaces, but that you want to populate with your EF classes. (The other day, I did exactly that with a legacy UI layer).