Is it possible to create a TextBox using GWT.create, not the constructor, and wrap an existing HTML element?
I tried:
TextBox text=GWT.create(TextBox.class)
text.setElement(DOM.createInput()) (2)
The above fails on line (2) with "cannot set element twice ..."
I need this in order to use GwtMockito and test a component that needs to create a TextBox.
Thank you!
UIObject have a package protected replaceElement Method which will do what you like to do.
Building a wrapper in the right package like this:
package com.google.gwt.user.client.ui;
import com.google.gwt.dom.client.Element;
public class ElementReplace
{
public static void replaceElement(UIObject obj, Element elem)
{
obj.replaceElement(elem);
}
}
and it is possible to access the method.
It seems you'd have to resort to using some sort of factory:
public interface TextBoxFactory {
TextBox wrap(Element element);
}
This will get injected into your view and you'll use the factory to wrap the existing element in a TextBox. The default implementation will, of course, just use TextBox#wrap(Element), as suggested by Baz. For the purposes of your tests, you'll use an implementation that returns a Mockito mock.
Not the prettiest solution, but given the circumstances, I can't think of a "cleaner" one.
I am using Xtext do define a new language. I wish to generate code from this language, however I do not want to use the automatically suggested doGenerate function. Instead, I need to use a java code (not Xtend), that I can call from the build process.
Of course in that java code I want to be able to use the 'resource' that is passed to the original suggested function, so I can access all the information from the DSL's code.
I Believe by default the generator is implementation is an xtend file but there is nothing stopping you from changing this to a java file, you just need to override the binding in your [LanguageName]RuntimeModule class as follows:-
public class ExampleRuntimeModule extends com.example.AbstractExampleRuntimeModule {
#Override
public Class<? extends IGenerator> bindIGenerator() {
return YourOwnGenerator.class;
}
}
Where YourOwnGenerator should implement IGenerator.
I am trying to deploy a bigger GWT project to start working on it. After several problems I finally ran into the following, which I am not able to solve:
Here is a random piece of code:
service.getSuggestionOracle(this.suggestionString.getText(), new AsyncCallback<List<Entity>>() {
#Override
public void onSuccess(List<Entity> result) {
suggestionString.setStyleName("searchInput");
processSuggestionOracle(result);
}
#Override
public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
suggestionString.setStyleName("searchInput");
GWT.log("Suggestion fails.");
}
});
Eclipse complains about the two functions onSuccess and onFailure that:
The method onSuccess(List<Entity>) of type new AsyncCallback<List<Entity>>(){} must override a superclass method
Indeed when I hover over the: new AsyncCallback<List<Entity>>() statement, it tells me that If an RPC is successful, then onSuccess(Object) is called, otherwise onFailure(Throwable) is called.
I conclude that there IS a superclasses with declarations for onSuccess and onFailure, but the compiler doesn't find it.
I use GWT-2.4.0 and the GWT library is added to the classpath.
The code above is just a random example, there are about 150 similar errors all over the
project. Additionally, there are several imports like com.xind.gwt.dom.client.DOM,
that can not be resolved.
Does anybody have an idea what I am missing here?
There are two possibilities that I could think of:
you haven't extended RemoteServiceServlet on the server implementation.
or
In this code,
public void onSuccess(List result) {
}
you have List as the returned object. Is this a list of objects of a user-defined class or java datatype? If the list is a user-defined type, then you must serialize the corresponding class by implementing java.io.serializable;
I'm in a generic method, debugging, but i get no information about variables, can't execute statements using ctrl-shift-i, eclipse tells the that the method ... isn't available on the type T.
I can't believe it's meant to (not) work like this ...
[edit]
I'm using the eclipse that's part of RAD 7.5.4
[another edit]
Here's some code but I doubt you'll get any info from this
public abstract class GenericGroupController<T extends Group> {
...
public String addUser(final Model model, final Long id, final WebRequest request) {
T group = groupManager.loadGroup(id);
...
// this method will fail if i highlight and click ctr-shift-i
// but it will work otherwise (actually so will the method above
// because that's generic as well)
Long groupId = group.getId();
...
return getAddUserView();
}
}
If you are able to debug, as in see a stack trace, you can always see the variables in the variables window if not in the code. A lot of places where the code isn't available you can do the same. It isn't nice, but, it gets the job done.
GWT.create() is the reflection equivalent in GWT,
But it take only class literals, not fully qualified String for the Class name.
How do i dynamically create classes with Strings using GWT.create()?
Its not possible according to many GWT forum posts but how is it being done in frameworks like Rocket-GWT (http://code.google.com/p/rocket-gwt/wiki/Ioc) and Gwittir (http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/wiki/Introspection)
It is possible, albeit tricky. Here are the gory details:
If you only think as GWT as a straight Java to JS, it would not work. However, if you consider Generators - Special classes with your GWT compiler Compiles and Executes during compilation, it is possible. Thus, you can generate java source while even compiling.
I had this need today - Our system deals with Dynamic resources off a Service, ending into a String and a need for a class. Here is the solutuion I've came up with - btw, it works under hosted, IE and Firefox.
Create a GWT Module declaring:
A source path
A Generator (which should be kept OUTSIDE the package of the GWT Module source path)
An interface replacement (it will inject the Generated class instead of the interface)
Inside that package, create a Marker interface (i call that Constructable). The Generator will lookup for that Marker
Create a base abstract class to hold that factory. I do this in order to ease on the generated source code
Declare that module inheriting on your Application.gwt.xml
Some notes:
Key to understanding is around the concept of generators;
In order to ease, the Abstract base class came in handy.
Also, understand that there is name mandling into the generated .js source and even the generated Java source
Remember the Generator outputs java files
GWT.create needs some reference to the .class file. Your generator output might do that, as long as it is referenced somehow from your application (check Application.gwt.xml inherits your module, which also replaces an interface with the generator your Application.gwt.xml declares)
Wrap the GWT.create call inside a factory method/singleton, and also under GWT.isClient()
It is a very good idea to also wrap your code-class-loading-calls around a GWT.runAsync, as it might need to trigger a module load. This is VERY important.
I hope to post the source code soon. Cross your fingers. :)
Brian,
The problem is GWT.create doen't know how to pick up the right implementation for your abstract class
I had the similar problem with the new GWT MVP coding style
( see GWT MVP documentation )
When I called:
ClientFactory clientFactory = GWT.create(ClientFactory.class);
I was getting the same error:
Deferred binding result type 'com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactory' should not be abstract
All I had to do was to go add the following lines to my MyWebapp.gwt.xml file:
<!-- Use ClientFactoryImpl by default -->
<replace-with class="com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactoryImpl">
<when-type-is class="com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactory"/>
</replace-with>
Then it works like a charm
I ran into this today and figured out a solution. The questioner is essentially wanting to write a method such as:
public <T extends MyInterface> T create(Class<T> clz) {
return (T)GWT.create(clz);
}
Here MyInterface is simply a marker interface to define the range of classes I want to be able to dynamically generate. If you try to code the above, you will get an error. The trick is to define an "instantiator" such as:
public interface Instantiator {
public <T extends MyInterface> T create(Class<T> clz);
}
Now define a GWT deferred binding generator that returns an instance of the above. In the generator, query the TypeOracle to get all types of MyInterface and generate implementations for them just as you would for any other type:
e.g:
public class InstantiatorGenerator extends Generator {
public String generate(...) {
TypeOracle typeOracle = context.getTypeOracle();
JClassType myTYpe= typeOracle.findType(MyInterface.class.getName());
JClassType[] types = typeOracle.getTypes();
List<JClassType> myInterfaceTypes = Collections.createArrayList();
// Collect all my interface types.
for (JClassType type : types) {
if (type.isInterface() != null && type.isAssignableTo(myType)
&& type.equals(myType) == false) {
myInterfaceTypes.add(type);
}
for (JClassType nestedType : type.getNestedTypes()) {
if (nestedType.isInterface() != null && nestedType.isAssignableTo(myType)
&& nestedType.equals(myTYpe) == false) {
myInterfaceTypes.add(nestedType);
}
}
}
for (JClassType jClassType : myInterfaceTypes) {
MyInterfaceGenerator generator = new MyInterfaceGenerator();
generator.generate(logger, context, jClassType.getQualifiedSourceName());
}
}
// Other instantiator generation code for if () else if () .. constructs as
// explained below.
}
The MyIntefaceGenerator class is just like any other deferred binding generator. Except you call it directly within the above generator instead of via GWT.create. Once the generation of all known sub-types of MyInterface is done (when generating sub-types of MyInterface in the generator, make sure to make the classname have a unique pattern, such as MyInterface.class.getName() + "_MySpecialImpl"), simply create the Instantiator by again iterating through all known subtypes of MyInterface and creating a bunch of
if (clz.getName().equals(MySpecialDerivativeOfMyInterface)) { return (T) new MySpecialDerivativeOfMyInterface_MySpecialImpl();}
style of code. Lastly throw an exception so you can return a value in all cases.
Now where you'd call GWT.create(clz); instead do the following:
private static final Instantiator instantiator = GWT.create(Instantiator.class);
...
return instantiator.create(clz);
Also note that in your GWT module xml, you'll only define a generator for Instantiator, not for MyInterface generators:
<generate-with class="package.rebind.InstantiatorGenerator">
<when-type-assignable class="package.impl.Instantiator" />
</generate-with>
Bingo!
What exactly is the question - i am guessing you wish to pass parameters in addition to the class literal to a generator.
As you probably already know the class literal passed to GWT.create() is mostly a selector so that GWT can pick and execute a generator which in the end spits out a class. The easist way to pass a parameter to the generator is to use annotations in an interface and pass the interface.class to GWT.create(). Note of course the interface/class must extend the class literal passed into GWT.create().
class Selector{
}
#Annotation("string parameter...")
class WithParameter extends Selector{}
Selector instance = GWT.create( WithParameter.class )
Everything is possible..although may be difficult or even useless. As Jan has mentioned you should use a generator to do that. Basically you can create your interface the generator code which takes that interface and compile at creation time and gives you back the instance. An example could be:
//A marker interface
public interface Instantiable {
}
//What you will put in GWT.create
public interface ReflectionService {
public Instantiable newInstance(String className);
}
//gwt.xml, basically when GWT.create finds reflectionservice, use reflection generator
<generate-with class="...ReflectionGenerator" >
<when-type-assignable class="...ReflectionService" />
</generate-with>
//In not a client package
public class ReflectionGenerator extends Generator{
...
}
//A class you may instantiate
public class foo implements Instantiable{
}
//And in this way
ReflectionService service = GWT.create(ReflectionService.class);
service.newInstance("foo");
All you need to know is how to do the generator. I may tell you that at the end what you do in the generator is to create Java code in this fashion:
if ("clase1".equals(className)) return new clase1();
else if ("clase2".equals(className)) return new clase2();
...
At the final I thought, common I can do that by hand in a kind of InstanceFactory...
Best Regards
I was able to do what I think you're trying to do which is load a class and bind it to an event dynamically; I used a Generator to dynamically link the class to the event. I don't recommend it but here's an example if it helps:
http://francisshanahan.com/index.php/2010/a-simple-gwt-generator-example/
Not having looked through the code of rocket/gwittir (which you ought to do if you want to find out how they did it, it is opensource after all), i can only guess that they employ deferred binding in such a way that during compile time, they work out all calls to reflection, and statically generate all the code required to implement those call. So during run-time, you cant do different ones.
What you're trying to do is not possible in GWT.
While GWT does a good job of emulating Java at compile time the runtime is of course completely different. Most reflection is unsupported and it is not possible to generate or dynamically load classes at runtime.
I had a brief look into code for Gwittir and I think they are doing their "reflection stuff" at compile time. Here: http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/source/browse/trunk/gwittir-core/src/main/java/com/totsp/gwittir/rebind/beans/IntrospectorGenerator.java
You might be able to avoid the whole issue by doing it on the server side. Say with a service
witch takes String and returns some sort of a serializable super type.
On the server side you can do
return (MySerializableType)Class.forName("className").newInstance();
Depending on your circumstances it might not be a big performance bottleneck.