I am trying to create an auto-generated GUID property on all cq:PageContent nodes. This will be similar to the jcr:uuid property, but will be persisted with content promotion/replication/package installs (whereas the jcr:uuid for a content item changes between different environments).
I am trying to determine how AEM/JCR generates the jcr:uuid property on node creation. The CND defining the property is:
[mix:referenceable]
mixin
- jcr:uuid (string) mandatory autocreated protected initialize
I've tried defining my GUID property in a similar manor, specifying the autocreated and initialize attributes, but this did not result in auto-generation of the property.
Could anybody point me to the source of the jcr:uuid's generation?
As an aside, I asked a related question on the Adobe Community Forum: http://help-forums.adobe.com/content/adobeforums/en/experience-manager-forum/adobe-experience-manager.topic.5_ciot.html/forum__bnxr-i_am_tryingtocreat.html
You don't mention which version of AEM (so whether you're dealing with Jackrabbit or Oak), but the mechanism turns out to be basically the same.
When assigning a default value, there are a few hard-coded system property names that get special treatment (jcr:uuid being one of them). If the name of the property being assigned a default value doesn't match any of the special cases, it falls back the static list of default values from the property definition (e.g. listed in the CND file).
In summary, it looks like you cannot piggy-back on this mechanism to assign your own dynamic default value for an arbitrary property. You would need to implement your own event listener or something.
Jackrabbit: See the implementation of setDefaultValues and computeSystemGeneratedPropertyValues
Oak: See the implementation of TreeUtil autoCreateProperty
Related
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.
I have an simple object that has a name
public class Foo {
private String name
}
Each user on the site may have up to 10 Foo's associated with them. Within this context, when a new Foo is created, I would like to validate that there isn't another foo associated with the same user that already exists.
I could Create a custom Bean Validator But annotations require the paramaeters to be defined during compilation. How would I then pass across the names of the existing Foos?
As suggested in various places, I could use EL expressions as an alternative way to pick up the data. This feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It also brings in a whole bunch of potential issues to consider least of all being ease of testing.
I could do class-wide validation using a boolean field
#AssertTrue(message="Name already exists")
public boolean isNameUnique() {
return (existingNames.contains(name));
}
But the validation message would not show up next to the name field. It is a cosmetic issue and this can be a backup plan. However, its not ideal.
Which brings me to the question:
Is there a simple way to write a Bean Validator that can check the value against a collection of values at the field level and meet the following restrictions ?
Previous values determined at runtime
Not using things like EL expressions
Field level validation instead of class level.
EDIT in reponse to Hardy:
The Foo class is an entity persisted within a database. They are picked up and used through a DAO interface.
I could loop through the entities but that means plugging the DAO into the validator and not to mention that the I would need to write the same thing again if I have another class that too has this constraint.
It would help to see how you want to use the Foo class. Can you extend your example code? Are they kept in a list of Foo instances. A custom constraint seems to be a good fit. Why do you need to pass any parameters to the constraints. I would just iterate over the foos and check whether the names are unique.
I am making a custom ActiveForm method, but it requires the model to have a certain custom validator attached the the attribute that is being passed through (otherwise who knows what will happen!?)
My question is simply... is there a way to run this check in the code that is reliable?
I don't want to add the validator at runtime. That would create confusion and possibly let someone use this type of field where it ought not be used.
So I want to say something like:
if( model NOT HAVE validationMethod ON property)
throw Exception;
I'm also not sure why you want to do this, but in addition to viewing the rules array you can do:
$model->getValidators($attribute)
to check which validators are active for a particular attribute (or all attributes, if the arg is null. (I'm assuming $attribute = property in your example.)
This will return all the validator objects that are active for the current scenario and you can check if a predefined or custom class exists. It also gets you a bit more info than just the rules array (i.e., the properties of the validator class).
Are there any recommended structural design patterns for MVVM view models that allow different state and functionality to be added to a base object dynamically, but still maintaining the INotifyPropertyChanged on all the related properties? Something like a decorator pattern but mvvm-ready?
Yes. The WPF binding system will use a custom type descriptor to interact with the properties of your ViewModel at runtime. I've used this before to make keys in a KeyValueCollection<T> appear as properties on the collection.
This has two important benefits. It simplifies binding:
DataContext.SomeCollectionProperty[SomeKey] can be simplified to DataContext.SomeCollectionProperty.SomeKey and, if you make a custom type descriptor for the data context, DataContext.SomeKey which is about as simple as it gets.
And it fixes what I consider a bug--format strings are rendered even when the property is null. Using a CTD, you can skip null (and DBNull) properties, ensuring that format strings won't be rendered if the property doesn't exist:
Imagine you have a double? that you must render as a dollar amount. If you use the following binding: {Binding Price, FormatString='Price: {0:c}'} and the Price is null, you get the following in your UI: Price: $. This is ugly. However, if Price is a PropertyDescriptor-based property on your UI, when the Price is null, you can opt to not to report this property via your CTD. This prevents the format string from being rendered at all.
Here's a pretty good link at MSDN about decorating your types with a CTD.
From my experimentation, you can use the ExpandoObject in .NET 4 to handle what you want. ExpandoObject implements INPC. I've been creating a DynamicViewModel based on the ExpandoObject that does a few other things like calculated Properties that have dependencies on each other and Delegate Command registration.
I'm implementing a Custom Workflow and Activities to be reused in multiple projects and trying to get them to be as easy to use as possible. In this workflow I have a Property whose name is 'UserID' which I'd like to bind to a dependencyproperty in one of my activities. I can currently bind it at design time searching explicitly for the property each time I add one of these activities to the workflow, but I'd like for this activity to be binded automatically.
As far as i know (correct me if I'm wrong), to bind a dependency property at design time I need to specify a string of the form "Activity=NameOfWorkflow, Path=UserID" to the DefaultBindingProperty metadata tag, and I'd like the name of the workflow to be completed in some way. Any way of doing this?
Thanks
I finally managed to achieve this by attaching an ActivityToolboxItem to the Activity, and overriding a method in it that creates the instance shown in the designer. I used an ActivityBind object to bind the dependencyproperty to the workflow's property. To get the instance of the workflow, I just searched for an ancestor to my activity by calling act.Parent until the activity had no parent (and thus was the StateMachineWorkflowActivity itself)