I need a way to get rid of fieldSetMapper.setTargetType because I do not want to add a POJO every time I have a new file to read. Is it possible?
Springbatch has a few FieldSetMapper implementations available out-of-the-box : Documentation (FieldSetMapper)
You can for example use a PassThroughFieldSetMapper to get a FieldSet object in your processor. You can do the same with an ArrayFieldSetMapper to get an array object.
But in your case, I think you need to implement your own FieldSetMapper. It could for example have a names property (with a setter) and a targetClass property (with a setter). Using Reflect, you could then cast the object to your desired class and call setters according to the names passed as arguments.
Here's what a FieldSetMapper looks like :
#Override
public Report mapFieldSet(FieldSet fieldSet) throws BindException {
T object;
object.setField(fieldSet.readString(0));
return object;
}
Here's what Reflect looks like :
Method method = object.getClass().getMethod(methodName);
method.invoke(object);
Related
I'm writing an AEM component and I have an object being returned that is a type from an SDK. This type has public properties and no getters. For simplicity, it might be defined like this:
class MyItem {
public String prop1;
public String prop2;
}
Now normally, I would need a getter, like so:
class MyItem {
public String prop1;
public String prop2;
public String getProp1() {
return prop1;
}
}
But I do not have this luxury. Right now, I've got a Java implementation that uses another type to resolve this, but I think it's sort of crazy that HTL doesn't allow me to just access prop1 directly (it calls the getter). I've reviewed the documentation and can't see any indication of how this could be done. I'd like to be able to write:
${item.prop1}
And have it access the public property instead of calling getProp1().
Is this possible?
You don't need getters for public fields if those fields were declared by your Java Use-class. There's actually a test in Apache Sling that covers this scenario:
https://github.com/apache/sling/blob/trunk/bundles/scripting/sightly/testing-content/src/main/resources/SLING-INF/apps/sightly/scripts/use/repopojo.html
This also applies to Use-classes exported from bundles.
For Sling Models using the adapter pattern [0] I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-7075.
[0] - https://sling.apache.org/documentation/bundles/models.html#specifying-an-alternate-adapter-class-since-110
From the official documentation
Once the use-class has initialized, the HTL file is run. During this stage HTL will typically pull in the state of various member variables of the use-class and render them for presentation.
To provide access to these values from within the HTL file you must define custom getter methods in the use-class according to the following naming convention:
A method of the form getXyz will expose within the HTL file an object property called xyz.
For example, in the following example, the methods getTitle and getDescription result in the object properties title and description becoming accessible within the context of the HTL file:
The HTL parser does enumerate all the public properties just like any java enumeration of public fuields which include getters and public memebers.
Although it is questionable on whether you should have public variable but thats not part of this discussion. In essence ot should work as pointed by others.
Is it possible to use different type attribute (instead of _class) for each polymorphic collection like it's implemented in Doctrine(PHP) or Jackson libraries? Current solution allows to store type information in document field. By default it is a full class name stored in the field named _class.
We can easy change it to save some custom string (alias) instead of full class name and change default discriminator field name from _class to something else.
In my situation I'm working on legacy database while legacy application is still in use. Legacy application uses Doctrine (PHP) ODM as datalayer.
Doctrine allows to define discriminator field name (_class in SpringData) by annotation and have it different for each collection.
In Spring Data when I pass typeKey to DefaultMongoTypeMapper it used for all collections.
Thanks.
// MyCustomMongoTypeMapper.java
// ...
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public <T> TypeInformation<? extends T> readType(DBObject source, TypeInformation<T> basicType) {
Assert.notNull(basicType);
Class<?> documentsTargetType = null;
Class<? super T> parent = basicType.getType();
while (parent != null && parent != java.lang.Object.class) {
final String discriminatorKey = getDiscriminatorKey(parent); //fetch key from annotation
if (null == discriminatorKey) {
parent = parent.getSuperclass();
} else {
accessor.setKey(discriminatorKey);
return super.readType(source, basicType);
}
}
accessor.resetKey();
return super.readType(source, basicType);
}
Something that should work for you is completely exchanging the MongoTypeMapper instance that MappingMongoConverter uses. As you discovered the already available implementation assumes a common field name and takes yet another strategy to either write the fully-qualified class name or an alias or the like.
However, you should be able to just write your own and particularly focus on the following methods:
void writeType(TypeInformation<?> type, DBObject dbObject) — you basically get the type and have complete control over where and how to put that into the DBObject.
<T> TypeInformation<? extends T> readType(DBObject source, TypeInformation<T> defaultType); — you get the type declared on the reading side (i.e. usually the most common type of the hierarchy) and based on that have to lookup the type from the given source document. I guess that's exactly the inverse of what's to be implemented in the other method.
On a final note, I would strongly recommend against using different type field names for different collections as on the reading side you might run into places where just Object is declared on the property and you basically don't get no clue where to even look for in the document.
What is the way to consume a list of custom objects inside another custom object in JAX-RS CXF implementation? As an example my object looks like below
#POST
#Produces({MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON})
#Path("test")
public Response myMethod(MyCustomObject myCustomObject) {
Inside MyCustomObject it has a list of another custom object which reside inside this as an inner class
public class MyCustomObject {
private List<MyInner> innerObjects;
public class MyInner {
private String property;
....
}
....
}
Request JSON object is passed as the POST body of the request. When I debug this I could get the MyCustomObject passed properly while I am sending the innerObjects list as null. But it seems its not picking this correctly when I have this array based structure there with a custom object. Additionally instead of this custom object array when I have a primitive type or a string based array the service works fine. How to deal with the above scenario.
It is probably because of the inner class.
Similar question here
Not sure what mapper you use (cxf default is jettison but it is all configurable), but the case is probably similar.
Great explanation here
non-static inner classes (including anonymous ones) have set of hidden variables added by compiler, passed via (hidden) constructor. And as a consequence, do not have zero-argument ("default") constructor
Using the Null Analysis of Eclipse:
It it possible to define other methods as initializing methods than Constructors?
I have a class like this:
public class Foo {
#NonNull
private Object fooObject;
public Foo() {
super();
}
public void onCreate() {
fooObject = //Something which is not available in the Constructor;
}
Here i get the warning that the NonNull field may has not been initialized. Is there any possibility to kind of declare the init-method as an initalizing one?
I could use #SuppressWarnings("null") for the constructor. But then I ignore all fields, which may instanciated somewhere.
Second chance i see is to make fooObject as #Nullable - but then i need check for null each time i use fooObject.
So is there any better solution?
Null-checking object initialization beyond the constructor is inherently difficult. Several sophisticated approaches exist, all of which require additional annotations.
In your example it seems to be near-impossible, to prove to the compiler, that onCreate() is always called before accessing the field.
A weaker solution has been proposed: #LazyNonNull, an annotation to be used on fields that are initially null, but once initialized can never go back to null. See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=414237
Obviously, a static factory method, that gathers all necessary values before invoking a constructor (with arguments) would be a lot easier to get right.
This is pretty basic, but sort of a generic issue so I want to hear what people's thoughts are. I have a situation where I need to take an existing MSI file and update it with a few standard modifications and spit out a new MSI file (duplication of old file with changes).
I started writing this with a few public methods and a basic input path for the original MSI. The thing is, for this to work properly, a strict path of calls has to be followed from the caller:
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcemsipath);
custom.Duplicate(targetmsipath);
custom.Upgrade();
custom.Save();
custom.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetxmlpath);
Would it be better to put all the conversion logic as part of the constructor instead of making them available as public methods? (in order to avoid having the caller have to know what the "proper order" is):
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcemsipath, targetmsipath); // saves converted msi
custom.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetxmlpath); // saves optional xml for sms
The constructor would then directly duplicate the MSI file, upgrade it and save it to the target location. The "WriteSmsXmlFile is still a public method since it is not always required.
Personally I don't like to have the constructor actually "do stuff" - I prefer to be able to call public methods, but it seems wrong to assume that the caller should know the proper order of calls?
An alternative would be to duplicate the file first, and then pass the duplicated file to the constructor - but it seems better to have the class do this on its own.
Maybe I got it all backwards and need two classes instead: SourcePackage, TargetPackage and pass the SourcePackage into the constructor of the TargetPackage?
I'd go with your first thought: put all of the conversion logic into one place. No reason to expose that sequence to users.
Incidentally, I agree with you about not putting actions into a constructor. I'd probably not do this in the constructor, and instead do it in a separate converter method, but that's personal taste.
It may be just me, but the thought of a constructor doing all these things makes me shiver. But why not provide a static method, which does all this:
public class CustomPackage
{
private CustomPackage(String sourcePath)
{
...
}
public static CustomPackage Create(String sourcePath, String targetPath)
{
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcePath);
custom.Duplicate(targetPath);
custom.Upgrade();
custom.Save();
return custom;
}
}
The actual advantage of this method is, that you won't have to give out an instance of CustomPackage unless the conversion process actually succeeded (safe of the optional parts).
Edit In C#, this factory method can even be used (by using delegates) as a "true" factory according to the Factory Pattern:
public interface ICustomizedPackage
{
...
}
public class CustomPackage: ICustomizedPackage
{
...
}
public class Consumer
{
public delegate ICustomizedPackage Factory(String,String);
private Factory factory;
public Consumer(Factory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
private ICustomizedPackage CreatePackage()
{
return factory.Invoke(..., ...);
}
...
}
and later:
new Consumer(CustomPackage.Create);
You're right to think that the constructor shouldn't do any more work than to simply initialize the object.
Sounds to me like what you need is a Convert(targetmsipath) function that wraps the calls to Duplicate, Upgrade and Save, thereby removing the need for the caller to know the correct order of operations, while at the same time keeping the logic out of the constructor.
You can also overload it to include a targetxmlpath parameter that, when supplied, also calls the WriteSmsXmlFile function. That way all the related operations are called from the same function on the caller's side and the order of operations is always correct.
In such situations I typicaly use the following design:
var task = new Task(src, dst); // required params goes to constructor
task.Progress = ProgressHandler; // optional params setup
task.Run();
I think there are service-oriented ways and object-oritented ways.
The service-oriented way would be to create series of filters that passes along an immutable data transfer object (entity).
var service1 = new Msi1Service();
var msi1 = service1.ReadFromFile(sourceMsiPath);
var service2 = new MsiCustomService();
var msi2 = service2.Convert(msi1);
service2.WriteToFile(msi2, targetMsiPath);
service2.WriteSmsXmlFile(msi2, targetXmlPath);
The object-oriented ways can use decorator pattern.
var decoratedMsi = new CustomMsiDecorator(new MsiFile(sourceMsiPath));
decoratedMsi.WriteToFile(targetMsiPath);
decoratedMsi.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetXmlPath);