I made a question that looked like this before and people didn't understand. I'll try to be more concise and will use a comparison with Ajax used in web applications.
I have the main form. There I have one button that will extract data from a field and send to a second form, a window that will pop up and display the data in a more organized way (A TListBox).
I would like to know if there is a way to on SecondForm.Show to send this data as parameters, like SecondForm.Show(data).
The comparison to Ajax is that when you make an Ajax Call from a html page to the server, you send encapsulated data, the server receives it and works with it.
I want my main form to send the data, the second form to receive the data and use it.
Is it possible? How?
If I were you, I'd add parameters to the form's constructor so that it has all the information it needs from the moment it exists.
constructor TSecondFrom.Create(AOwner: TComponent; AParam1: Integer; const AParam2: string);
begin
inherited Create(AOwner);
// Use or store parameters here
end;
You're welcome to write some other method instead, though, and you can call it Show, if you want. Define it to accept whatever parameters you need, and when you're ready, you can call the inherited zero-argument Show method to make the form appear.
procedure TSecondForm.Show(AParam1: Integer; const AParam2: string);
begin
// Use parameters here.
inherited Show;
end;
Decide in what form to send the data from Main to SecondFrom. For instance in a TStringList. Fill the striglist on the mainform, use it as parameter in SecondForm.Show.
This is the answer from your other question that you deleted. It still applies I believe.
Always prefer passing state in the constructor if that is viable.
Problems with state occur when it changes. Multi-threading is confounded by mutating state. Code that makes copies of state become out of sync if the state changes later.
Objects cannot be used while the constructor is executing. That's the time to mutate state since no other party can see the effects of that mutation. Once the constructor returns the newly minted object to its new owner, it is fully initialized.
It's hard with an OOP style to limit all mutation to constructors. Few, if any, libraries admit that style of coding. However, the more mutation you push into the constructor, the lower the risk of being caught out later.
In reality, for your scenario, I suspect that these risks are minimal. However, as a general principle, initialization during construction is sound and it makes sense to adhere to the principle uniformly.
Related
Is there any design pattern or something else for the network communication using Socket.
I mean what i always do is :
I receive a message from my client or my server
I extract the type of this message (f.e : LOGIN or LOGOUT or
CHECK_TICKET etc ...)
And i test this type in a switch case statement
Then execute the suitable method for this type
this way is a little bit borring when u have a lot of type of message.
Each time i have to add a type, i have to add it in the switch case.
Plus, it take more machine operations when you have hundred or thousands type of message in your protocol (due to the switch case).
Thanks.
You could use a loop over a set of handler classes (i.e. one for each type of message supported). This is essentially the composite pattern. The Component and each Composite then become independently testable. Once written Component need never change again and the support for a new message becomes isolated to a single new class (or perhaps lambda or function pointer depending on language). Also you can add/remove/reorder Composites at runtime to the Component, if that was something you wanted from your design (alternatively if you wanted to prevent this, depending on your language you could use variadic templates). Also you could look at Chain of Responsibility.
However, if you thought that adding a case to a switch is a bit laborious, I suspect that writing a new class would be too.
P.S. I don't see a good way of avoiding steps 1 and 2.
I'm using hunchentoot session values to make my server code re-entrant. Problem is that session values are, by definition, retained during the session, i.e., from one call from the same browser to the next, whereas what I really am looking for is what amount to thread-specific re-entrancy, so that all the values disappear between calls -- I want to treat each click as a separate "from scratch" event, even if they are from the same session . Easy enough to have the driver either set to nil, or delete my session values, but I'm wondering if there's a "correct" way to do this? I don't see any thread-based analog to hunchentoot:session-value in the documentation.
Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer.
If you want a value to be "thread specific" and at the same time to be "from scratch" on every request, that requires that every request must be dispatched in a brand new thread. This is not the case according to the Hunchentoot documentation, which says that two models are supported: a single-threaded taskmaster and a thread-per-connection taskmaster.
If your configuration is multi-threaded, then a thread-specific variable bound in a request-handling can therefore be expected to be per-connection. In a single-threaded Hunchentoot setup, it will effectively be global, tied to the request servicing thread.
A thread-based analog to hunchentoot:session-value probably doesn't exist because it would only introduce behaviors into the web app which surprisingly change if the threading model is reconfigured, or if the request pattern from the browser changes. A browser can make multiple requests using the same connection, or close the connection between requests.
To extend the request objects with custom per-request, I would look into, perhaps, subclassing from the acceptor (how to do this is described in the docs). My custom acceptor would have a custom method of the process-connection generic function which would create extended/subclasses request objects carrying the extra stuff I wanted to put into a request.
Another way would be to have some global weak hash which binds request objects as keys to additional information.
I'm evaluating backbone.js as a potential javascript library for use in an application which will have a few different backends: WebSocket, REST, and 3rd party library producing JSON. I've read some opinions that backbone.js works beautifully with RESTful backends so long as the api is 'by the book' and follows the appropriate http verbage. Can someone elaborate on what this means?
Also, how much trouble is it to get backbone.js to connect to WebSockets? Lastly, are there any issues with integrating a backbone.js model with a function which returns JSON - in other words does the data model always need to be served via REST?
Backbone's power is that it has an incredibly flexible and modular structure. It means that any part of Backbone you can use, extend, take out, or modify. This includes the AJAX functionality.
Backbone doesn't "care" where do you get the data for your collections or models. It will help you out by providing an out of the box RESTful "ajax" solution, but it won't be mad if you want to use something else!
This allows you to find (or write) any plugin you want to handle the server interaction. Just look on backplug.io, Google, and Github.
Specifically for Sockets there is backbone.iobind.
Can't find a plugin, no worries. I can tell you exactly how to write one (it's 100x easier than it sounds).
The first thing that you need to understand is that overwriting behavior is SUPER easy. There are 2 main ways:
Globally:
Backbone.Collection.prototype.sync = function() {
//screw you Backbone!!! You're completely useless I am doing my own thing
}
Per instance
var MySpecialCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({
sync: function() {
//I like what you're doing with the ajax thing... Clever clever ;)
// But for a few collections I wanna do it my way. That cool?
});
And the only other thing you need to know is what happens when you call "fetch" on a collection. This is the "by the book"/"out of the box behavior" behavior:
collection#fetch is triggered by user (YOU). fetch will delegate the ACTUAL fetching (ajax, sockets, local storage, or even a function that instantly returns json) to some other function (collection#sync). Whatever function is in collection.sync has to has to take 3 arguments:
action: create (for creating), action: read (for fetching), delete (for deleting), or update (for updating) = CRUD.
context (this variable) - if you don't know what this does it, don't worry about it, not important for now
options - where da magic is. We only care about 1 option though
success: a callback that gets called when the data is "ready". THIS is the callback that collection#fetch is interested in because that's when it takes over and does it's thing. The only requirements is that sync passes it the following 1st argument
response: the actual data it got back
Now
has to return a success callback in it's options that gets executed when it's done getting the data. That function what it's responsible for is
Whenever collection#sync is done doing it's thing, collection#fetch takes back over (with that callback in passed in to success) and does the following nifty steps:
Calls set or reset (for these purposes they're roughly the same).
When set finishes, it triggers a sync event on the collection broadcasting to the world "yo I'm ready!!"
So what happens in set. Well bunch of stuff (deduping, parsing, sorting, parsing, removing, creating models, propagating changesand general maintenance). Don't worry about it. It works ;) What you need to worry about is how you can hook in to different parts of this process. The only two you should worry about (if your wraps data in weird ways) are
collection#parse for parsing a collection. Should accept raw JSON (or whatever format) that comes from the server/ajax/websocket/function/worker/whoknowwhat and turn it into an ARRAY of objects. Takes in for 1st argument resp (the JSON) and should spit out a mutated response for return. Easy peasy.
model#parse. Same as collection but it takes in the raw objects (i.e. imagine you iterate over the output of collection#parse) and splits out an "unwrapped" object.
Get off your computer and go to the beach because you finished your work in 1/100th the time you thought it would take.
That's all you need to know in order to implement whatever server system you want in place of the vanilla "ajax requests".
Is it a function?
Is it a function being called from the source?
Or, is it a function being returned from the destination?
Or, is it just executing a function at the destination?
Or, is it a value returned from a function passed to the destination?
A callback is the building block of asynchronous processing.
Think of it this way: when you call someone and they don't answer, you leave a message and your phone number. Later on, the person calls you back based on the phone number you left.
A callback works in a similar manner.
You ask an API for a long running operation and you provide a method from within your code to be called with the result of the operation. The API does its work and when the result is ready, it calls your callback method.
From the great Wikipedia:
In computer programming, a callback is
executable code that is passed as an
argument to other code. It allows a
lower-level software layer to call a
subroutine (or function) defined in a
higher-level layer.
Said another way, when you pass a callback to your method, it's as if you are providing additional instructions (e.g., what you should do next). An attempt at making a simple human example follows:
Paint this wall this shade of green (where "paint" is analagous to the method called, while "wall" and "green" are similar to arguments).
When you have finished painting, call me at this number to let me know that you're done and I'll tell you what to do next.
In terms of practical applications, one place where you will sometimes see callbacks is in situations with asynchronous message passing. You might want to register a particular message as an item of interest for class B.
However, without something like a callback, there's no obvious way for class A to know that class B has received the message. With a callback, you can tell class B, here's the message that I want you to listen for and this is the method in class A that I want you to call when you receive it.
Here is a Java example of a callback from a related question.
I run into this regularly, and am just looking for best practice/approach. I have a database / datamodule-containing app, and want to fire up the database/datasets on startup w/o having "active at runtime" set to true at design time (database location varies). Also run a web "check for updates" routine when the app starts up.
Given TForm event sequences, and results from various trial and error, I'm currently using this approach:
I use a "Globals" record set up in the main form to store all global vars, have one element of that called Globals.AppInitialized (boolean), and set it to False in the Initialization section of the main form.
At the main form's OnShow event (all forms are created by then), I test Globals.AppInitialized; if it's false, I run my "Initialization" stuff, and then finish by setting Globals.AppInitialized := True.
This seems to work pretty well, but is it the best approach? Looking for insight from others' experience, ideas and opinions. TIA..
I generally always turn off auto creation of all forms EXCEPT for the main form and possibly the primary datamodule.
One trick that I learned you can do, is add your datamodule to your project, allow it to auto-create and create BEFORE your main form. Then, when your main form is created, the onCreate for the datamodule will have already been run.
If your application has some code to say, set the focus of a control (something you can't do on creation, since its "not visible yet") then create a user message and post it to the form in your oncreate. The message SHOULD (no guarantee) be processed as soon as the forms message loop is processed. For example:
const
wm_AppStarted = wm_User + 101;
type
Form1 = class(tForm)
:
procedure wmAppStarted(var Msg:tMessage); message wm_AppStarted;
end;
// in your oncreate event add the following, which should result in your wmAppStarted event firing.
PostMessage(handle,wm_AppStarted,0,0);
I can't think of a single time that this message was never processed, but the nature of the call is that it is added to the message queue, and if the queue is full then it is "dropped". Just be aware that edge case exists.
You may want to directly interfere with the project source (.dpr file) after the form creation calls and before the Application.Run. (Or even earlier in case.)
This is how I usually handle such initialization stuff:
...
Application.CreateForm(TMainForm, MainForm);
...
MainForm.ApplicationLoaded; // loads options, etc..
Application.Run;
...
I don't know if this is helpful, but some of my applications don't have any form auto created, i.e. they have no mainform in the IDE.
The first form created with the Application object as its owner will automatically become the mainform. Thus I only autocreate one datamodule as a loader and let this one decide which datamodules to create when and which forms to create in what order. This datamodule has a StartUp and ShutDown method, which are called as "brackets" around Application.Run in the dpr. The ShutDown method gives a little more control over the shutdown process.
This can be useful when you have designed different "mainforms" for different use cases of your application or you can use some configuration files to select different mainforms.
There actually isn't such a concept as a "global variable" in Delphi. All variables are scoped to the unit they are in and other units that use that unit.
Just make the AppInitialized and Initialization stuff as part of your data module. Basically have one class (or datamodule) to rule all your non-UI stuff (kind of like the One-Ring, except not all evil and such.)
Alternatively you can:
Call it from your splash screen.
Do it during log in
Run the "check for update" in a background thread - don't force them to update right now. Do it kind of like Firefox does.
I'm not sure I understand why you need the global variables? Nowadays I write ALL my Delphi apps without a single global variable. Even when I did use them, I never had more than a couple per application.
So maybe you need to first think why you actually need them.
I use a primary Data Module to check if the DB connection is OK and if it doesn't, show a custom component form to setup the db connection and then loads the main form:
Application.CreateForm(TDmMain, DmMain);
if DmMain.isDBConnected then
begin
Application.CreateForm(TDmVisualUtils, DmVisualUtils);
Application.CreateForm(TfrmMain, frmMain);
end;
Application.Run;
One trick I use is to place a TTimer on the main form, set the time to something like 300ms, and perform any initialization (db login, network file copies, etc). Starting the application brings up the main form immediately and allows any initialization 'stuff' to happen. Users don't startup multiple instances thinking "Oh..I didn't dbl-click...I'll do it again.."