I am writing a custom control and have an association declared like this:
details: {type: "sap.m.IconTabFilter", multiple: true, singularName: "detail"}
In the debugger I can see that there is an addAssociation function available, but there is no insertAssociation function (I am extending from sap.m.ResponsivePopover if that makes a difference).
My use-case is that I have an sap.m.IconTabBar that is internal to my control which I populate internally. But I also need to allow consumers to pass in their own custom tabs.
I want consumers to be able to instantiate my control using XML view types for example, so I am trying to expose a "details" association so they can seamlessly add the custom tab without having to create their own IconTabBar.
Is my understanding of associations incorrect?
Declaring it multiple says to the framework to store the association as an array. You are getting a method called getDetails() for this association. And also an addDetail and a removeDetail() method. Not sure if I understood your question because if you have a addDetail to add content to the association why do you want the insert?
J.
Related
I'm trying to use Zenject in Unity. I have an interface and several implementations of it.
I want to inject with ID but also that the implementation will have the tick interface since it's not a MonoBehaviour.
So I have an IAttacker interface and a MeleeAttackImpl implementation.
Container.Bind<IAttacker>().WithId(AttackerTypeEnum.MELEEE).To<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsTransient();
I want to add
Container.BindInterfacesTo<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsTransient();
But it creates 2 different objects instead of instances that have the Tick interface and bind them to IAttacker.
If you want to bind an interface to a determined implementation, why do you use two bindings?
If you want only one instance of the object I would try:
Container.BindInterfacesAndSelfTo<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsSingle();
or:
Container.Bind<IAttacker>().To<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsSingle();
As Single() In the case you need the same instance provided from the container along the app (like a singleton).
From the documentation:
"AsTransient - Will not re-use the instance at all. Every time ContractType is requested, the DiContainer will execute the given construction method again."
Many times intance is created in the binding itself. So maybe from the two binding two instances are created, one from each binding.
In case you need to create instances dynamically with all their dependencies resolved, what you need a is Factory.
How many instance does binding creates internally for converters.
<Image x:Uid="DisplayedImageUrl" Style="{StaticResource ImageStyle}"
Source="{Binding DisplayedImageURL, Converter={StaticResource ImageLogoConverter}}" />
How many instance does of ImageLogoConverter will be there?
Is it good idea to use converter in ViewModel, if not then what is the best way to access converted value of ViewModel property.
Is it good idea to use converter in ViewModel?
No. Why would you use a converter in a view model where you can return the converted value directly? Converters are used in the view, typically to convert a non-view friendly value that the view model returns.
If not then what is the best way to access converted value of ViewModel property?
You can simpy return an already converted value from the view model, i.e. instead of binding to a Uri property, you may bind directly to an ImageSource property.
This is the recommnded approach if you for example intend to display a lot of elements in a ItemsControl. Then you probably don't want to invoke a converter for each visible element for performance reasons.
I suppose you created the converter as a resource like this:
The number of instances now depends on the scope where the converter resource is declared. If you create it in <Page.Resources>, one instance will be created to be used by the page. If you create it in App.xaml in <Application.Resources> it will be an application-wide instance. Of course, you can even use a narrower scope - create it as a resource of a single control in your XAML tree for example - in any case, a single instance is created when instance of the parent is created.
The situation gets a bit more interesting if you embed it in a ItemTemplate of a list control. Thanks to virtualization, the system will not actually create one instance for each item. Instead, it will create only so many instances as fit on the screen and they get reused when the user scrolls.
Some MVVM developers don't like value converters, but others use them extensively. It really is a matter of preference. In cas you expect the underlying data to change often, it is advisable to keep the code in the converter as performant as possible as it runs on the UI thread.
This is more of a generalized question as I have yet to write the code for the question I am asking. Before I get started writing the code I wanted to make sure I am on the right track and possibly getting suggestions for better ways to do what I want to do. Basically right now I have a core data model setup in a way that I think is correct for what I am trying to do and just need some guidance on a very specific part of the code but want to make sure overall I created it correctly.
The first part to the question is more of a clarification on how relationships work in core data. Right now I have 5 entities and to make sure I have the correct idea on how it works I will use a few examples to make sure I am on the right track.
So lets save I have an entity I called name. Within that Name entity that contains only a name attribute. Next I have an entity that has classes, that each have a boolean of true or false to determine which class it is. These 2 are related in a inverse relationship of Name entity having a to one relationship and the Classes having a to many relationship because multiple names can have multiple classes but each name can only have 1 class. If I am right on this one that means I full understand core data relationships!
Now the second part of the question is related to the booleans in the class. I have the Class entity which is like I said a boolean containing a true false set as default to false. When the user selects one of the class buttons before presenting the popover where they actually give the name of the class selected it saves the boolean to true then passes that data over to the popover Name view controller. I am very unsure as to how to do this as it isn't a widely asked question on here nor have I been able to find any info through researching. I am one of those people who needs to actually learn by clear examples....any help with this would be appreciated! Sorry I don't have any example code for this.
The first part seems correct. The ManagedObject of your Class CoreDataObject should have an NSSet property which will contain the names (as the Class can have multiple names)
For the second part, Core Data uses objects. When you 'get' the data from Core Data it will be a (probably extended) NSManagedObject (named Class in our case). You can send this object as a parameter just as you would do with any other object and use it as you would use any other object :-). For example looping over de NSSet Names
func iterateOverNames(someClass: Class) {
for name: Name in someClass.names {
// do stuff
}
}
You can check these links for more information:
https://realm.io/news/jesse-squires-core-data-swift/
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/CoreDataFramework/Classes/NSManagedObject_Class/index.html
I have splitted my application into two main areas.
Part(A)
PartStashContainer(B)
The content of A should be set based on what user wants.
So basically i can have 1..N classes which could be used in Class URI of Part in application model.
I don't know if i should replace the whole Part(A) with new dynamically created Part(C) which has content i want, or i should somehow to modify the existing Part (call setContributionURI, or setObject methods on Part object?).
It does make more sense to me to modify the existing Part, because it is defined in Application model and therefore already describing the location where the content should be.
Possible solutions:
Modify the Part object so it "reload" its content based on new setup (But how? Can setContributionURI or setObject methods help?)
Remove the old Part and add dynamically on same place in Application model the new Part (using EModelService and EPartService).
other solution??
If you want to reuse the Part then do something like:
MPart part = find or inject your part
MyClass myClass = (MyClass)part.getObject();
... call a method of MyClass to change the contents
MyClass is the class you specify for the object in the application model. You should add a method to that to let you change the contents.
Don't try to call setObject, this is really only for use by Eclipse. I don't think setContributionURI would do anything after the part is created (but I am not sure).
If you want to use different classes for the different data then you really should use different Parts.
I'm trying to port the core of an application across to Portable Class Libraries and don't appear to have binding support.
I'm trying to bind a property on my ViewModel to my Model, which consists of an ObservableDictionary (INotifyPropertyChanged, INotifyCollectionChanged, IDictionary<string, string>). I do this usually (with WP7) by using the following code when initialising the view model:
SetBinding(MyProperty, new Binding(string.Format("MyDictionary[{0}]", "thekey")) { Source = MyModel });
How would I approach this when using Portable Class Libraries, where it seems like the Binding class is unavailable?
I've implemented this by having the base class for the ViewModels wire up to the PropertyChanged event of the ViewModel and the NotifyCollectionChanged event of the ObservableDictionary. I then have a method (with a set of overloads for additionally supplying an implementation of an IPclValueConverter which is a copy of the IValueConverter) which adds to a collection of PclBinding objects which is a set of PropertyInfo, dictionary key, IPclValueConverter and a converter parameter.
Within the PropertyChanged/NotifyCollectionChanged I check to see if the binding should be updated, and if so perform the update passing the value through a converter if present.
This means that from my original example, I now write the following inside my ViewModel which creates the binding as required:
SetBinding(() => MyProperty, "theKey");
If anyone is actually interested in this code I'd be happy to post it up. :)