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
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.
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);
ConfigProperty.idPropertyMap is filled on the server side. (verified via log output)
Accessing it on the client side shows it's empty. :-( (verified via log output)
Is this some default behaviour? (I don't think so)
Is the problem maybe related to the inner class ConfigProperty.IdPropertyMap, java.util.HashMap usage, serialization or some field access modifier issue?
Thanks for your help
// the transfer object
public class ConfigProperty implements IsSerializable, Comparable {
...
static public class IdPropertyMap extends HashMap
implements IsSerializable
{
...
}
protected static IdPropertyMap idPropertyMap = new IdPropertyMap();
...
}
// the server service
public class ManagerServiceImpl extends RemoteServiceServlet implements
ManagerService
{
...
public IdPropertyMap getConfigProps(String timeToken)
throws ConfiguratorException
{
...
}
}
added from below after some good answers (thanks!):
answer bottom line: static field sync is not implemented/supported currently. someone/me would have to file a feature request
just my perspective (an fallen-in-love newby to GWT :-)):
I understand pretty good (not perfect! ;-)) the possible implications of "global" variable syncing (a dependency graph or usage of annotations could be useful).
But from a new (otherwise experienced Java EE/web) user it looks like this:
you create some myapp.shared.dto.MyClass class (dto = data transfer objects)
you add some static fields in it that just represent collections of those objects (and maybe some other DTOs)
you can also do this on the client side and all the other static methods work as well
only thing not working is synchronization (which is not sooo bad in the first place)
BUT: some provided annotation, let's say #Transfer static Collection<MyClass> myObjList; would be handy, since I seem to know the impact and benefits that this would bring.
In my case it's rather simple since the client is more static, but would like to have this data without explicitely implementing it if the GWT framework could do it.
static variables are purely class variable It has nothing to do with individual instances. serialization applies only to object.
So ,your are getting always empty a ConfigProperty.idPropertyMap
The idea of RPC is not that you can act as though the client and the server are exactly the same JVM, but that they can share the objects that you pass over the wire. To send a static field over the wire, from the server to the client, the object stored in that field must be returned from the RPC method.
Static properties are not serialized and sent over the wire, because they do not belong to a single object, but to the class itself.
public class MyData implements Serializable {
protected String name;//sent over the wire, each MyData has its own name
protected String key;
protected static String masterKey;//All objects on the server or client
// share this, it cannot be sent over RPC. Instead, another RPC method
// could access it
}
Note, however, that it will only be that one instance which will be shared - if something else on the server changes that field, all clients which have asked for a copy will need to be updated
I followed https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/articles/mvp-architecture .
In their model, they use one class 'Contact' and a light version of that class called 'ContactDetails'.
Since I don't really need a light version, I removed ContactDetails and replaced it by Contact.
Now I run into exceptions like
Type 'org.eclipse.persistence.indirection.IndirectList' was not included in the set of types which can be serialized by this SerializationPolicy or its Class object could not be loaded. For security purposes, this type will not be serialized.: instance = {IndirectList: not instantiated}
The reason is, as I found out here (http://stackoverflow.com/a/6778986/1141785), that the Contact class is a class which uses Persistence API techniques, which should not be sent to the wire.
So is the ContactDetails class my DTO class which should be sent through the wire?
Is there no way to avoid using this extra class?
The reason I want to avoid using the 'light' version is, that I want to edit the Contact class in a DataGrid using the FieldUpdater.
Do I have any advantages in my case when I use the DTO class?
How can I avoid that I have so many duplicated code in the Contact and ContactDetails classes, when they should by nearly the name?
When using JPA, you can have a class containing a List such as:
public class Contact implements IsSerializable {
// ...
private List<Address> addresses;
// ...
}
But when Contact is created, addresses is set to an instance of IndirectList. This allows lazy loading of the collection from the database, but won't work on the client. You would need to replace it with something like an ArrayList before sending it to the client. You can set it to an empty list, or copy the contents to a new list.
If the elements of the list contain collections themselves, then you need to replace these collections as well. You'd need to be careful about circular references and pulling too many items from the database.
Simply annotate your List with fetchtype eager.
public class Contact implements IsSerializable {
#ElementCollection(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
private List<Address> addresses;
}
I am very new to GWT.
I am using ext-gwt widgets.
I found many places in my office code containing like,
class A extends BaseModel{
private UserAccountDetailsDto userAccountDetailsDto = null;
//SETTER & GETTER IN BASEMODEL WAY
}
Also, the DTO reference is unused.
public class UserAccountDetailsDto implements Serializable{
private Long userId=null;
private String userName=null;
private String userAccount=null;
private String userPermissions=null;
//NORMAL SETTER & GETTER
}
Now, I am able to get the result from GWT Server side Code and things Work fine, but when I comment the DTO reference inside the class A, I am not getting any Result.
Please explain me the need of that.
Thanks
Well the problem is in implementation of GXT BaseModel and GWT-RPC serialization.
BaseModel is based around special GXT map, RpcMap. This map has defined special serialization rules, which let's avoid RPC type explosion, but as side effect, only some simple types stored in map will be serialized. E.g. you can put any type inside the map, but if you serialize/deserialize it, only values of type Integer, String ,Double,Byte, Float and Short (and arrays of this types) will be present. So the meaning behind putting reference to the DTO inside BaseModel, is to tell GWT-RPC that this type is also have to be serialized.
Detailed explanation
Basically GWT-RPC works like this:
When you define an interface for service, GWT-RPC analyzes all the classes used in parameters/ return type, to create serializers/deserializers. If you return something like Map<Object,Object> from your service, GWT-RPC will have to create a serializer for each class which implements Map and Serializable interfaces, but also it will generate serializers for each class which implements Serializable. In the end it is quite a bad situation, because the size of your compiled js file will be much biggger. This situation is called GWT-RPC type explosion.
So, in the BaseModel, all values are stored in RpcMap. And RpcMap has custom written serializer (RpcMap_CustomFieldSerializer you can see it's code if you interested how to create such things), so it doesn't cause the problem described above. But since it has custom serializer GWT dosn't know which custom class have been put inside RpcMap, and it doesn't generate serializers for them. So when you put some field into your BaseModel class, gwt knows that it might need to be able to serialize this class, so it will generate all the required stuff for this class.
Porting GXT2 Application code using BaseModel to GXT3 Model is uphill task. It would be more or less completely rewrite on model side with ModelProviders from GXT3 providing some flexibility. Any code that relies on Model's events, store, record etc are in for a rewrite.