Given an arbitrary field on a Java object, I want to create an Observable that will watch that field and push a new result to an Observer every time the value of the field changes. ReactiveCocoa has a macro called RACObserve, which appears to do exactly this.
I want to know how to implement similar functionality using RxJava.
For example, say I had the following simple class:
public class Foo {
enum State {
Idle,
Ready,
Error
}
private State currentState = State.Idle;
//methods that can change currentState
}
I want to create an Observable<State> that will push the new state to an Observer every time something changes the value of currentState.
In ReactiveCocoa, it looks like I would write something sort of like the following (please excuse my pseudo Objective-C):
[RACObserve(self, currentState) subscribeNext:^(NSString *newState) {
NSLog(#"%#", newState);
}];
How would I achieve similar functionality in RxJava? I'm thinking that I may need to wrap all changes to currentState in a setter, but it's not clear to me where I should then call Observable.create and how to feed the changes of currentState to an Observer.
ReactiveCocoa is actually more similar to ReactiveUI (http://www.reactiveui.net) than just plain Rx. And in ReactiveUI, you can use this.WhenAnyValue(x => x.PropName) to do exactly what you want.
I stumbled across this same problem recently, I ended up using PropertyChangeListener, which will emit an object when a property is changed, see the following:
Update Listener:
public class GameUpdateListener {
public static Observable<Object> changed(Game game) {
final BehaviorSubject<Object> subject = BehaviorSubject.create((Object)game);
game.addPropertyChangeListener(new PropertyChangeListener() {
#Override
public void propertyChange(PropertyChangeEvent propertyChangeEvent) {
subject.onNext( (Object)propertyChangeEvent.getNewValue());
}
});
return subject;
}
}
Some custom object:
public class Game {
private PropertyChangeSupport pcs = new PropertyChangeSupport(this);
...
public setSomeField(String field){
this.field = field;
pcs.firePropertyChange("field", this.field, field);
}
public void addPropertyChangeListener(PropertyChangeListener propertyChangeListener) {
pcs.addPropertyChangeListener(propertyChangeListener);
}
...
}
Observe:
Game game = new Game();
GameUpdateListener listener = new GameUpdateListener();
final Observable<Object> gameObserver = listener.changed(game);
gameObserver.subscribe(new Action1<Object>() {
#Override
public void call(Object o) {
Log.e(TAG, "Object Changed");
}
});
game.setSomeField("New value");
This will work fine as long as you don't need to instantiate your object again. Perhaps a solution to this is to create a local setter method and emit a change there.
Since your question title contains "or Rx.NET", here is my suggestion (I dunno bout RxJava, you may find something similar).
You probably will have to leverage some sort of mechanism in the setter. The standard way in .NET is by using the INotifyPropertyChanged interface.
Then by firing the events, you can create an IObservable<T> from this stream by using
Observable.FromEvent<TEvent, TArgs>()
You can find a really good example of what you want to do (.NET) here.
(credits to Rob Foncesa-Ensor)
I think what you are after is a Subject<T>. It implements IObserver<T>, so you can call OnNext(T) to fire a new value, as well as IObservable<T>, which you can expose it as publicly so it can be subscribed to.
If you need it to fire the latest value to new subscribers, you can use a ReplaySubject<T> with a buffer size of 1.
Here's a basic implementation:
public class SomeService
{
private Subject<int> values = new Subject<int>();
public IObservable<T> Values
{
get
{
// AsObservable prevents it from being cast back to Subject
return values.AsObservable();
}
}
// Private; called by some internal mechanism
private void SetValue(int newValue)
{
newValue.OnNext(newValue);
}
}
Related
Observer has onNext(), OnError() and onComplete().
Is there a way to add an additional method?
There is a possibility that the object received via the stream is of two types instead of the same type. And both possibilities are a success scenario. They are just handled differently by the observer.
Now, with callbacks, one would add a new method to handle this.
But not sure how this would be done with Rx.
Or is there another way of handling this without having to add a new method?
Thanks
I think the best way to achieve this is by using a common super class which can hold both objects.
In Kotlin you can do this with sealed class in Java do it with a simple POJO. One downside is that you have to use instanceOf and casting to use the actual type.
public class Result<T> {
public T result;
public Result(T result) {
this.result = result;
}
}
public class Result1 extends Result<Object1> {
public Result1(Object1 result) {
super(result);
}
}
public class Result2 extends Result<Object2> {
public Result2(Object2 result) {
super(result);
}
}
Your Observable can emit Result objects, and you can cast to either result based on what you got on the onNext method.
I'm having trouble finding an example of how to make a custom operator with RxJava 2. I've considered a few approaches:
Using Observable.create, and then flatMaping on it from the source observable. I can get this working, but it doesn't quite feel right. I end up creating a static function which I provide the source Observable, and then flatMap on the source. In the OnSubscribe, I then instantiate an object that I pass the emitter to, which handles and manages the Observable / Emitter (as it's not trivial, and I want everything as encapsulated as possible).
Creating an ObservableOperator and providing it to Observable.lift. I can't find any examples of this for RxJava 2. I had to debug into my own example to make sure my understanding of upstream and downstream were correct. Because I can't find any examples or documentation on this for RxJava 2 I'm a little worried I might accidentally do something I'm not supposed to.
Create my own Observable type. This seems to be how the underlying operators work, many of which extend AbstractObservableWithUpstream. There is a lot going on here though, and it seems easy to miss something or do something I shouldn't. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take an approach like this or not. I stepped myself through the mental process, and it seems like it can get hairy pretty quickly.
I'm going to proceed forward with option #2, but thought it worthwhile to ask what the supported method for doing this was in RxJava2 and also find out if there was any documentation or examples for this.
Writing operators is not recommended for beginners and many desired flow patterns can be achieved via existing operators.
Have you looked at RxJava's wiki about writing operators for 2.x? I suggest reading it from top to bottom.
using create() is possible but most people use it to emit the elements of a List with a for-each loop, not recognizing that Flowable.fromIterable does that.
We kept this extension point although RxJava 2 operators don't use lift() themselves. If you want to avoid some boilerplate with option 3. then you may try this route.
This is how RxJava 2 operators are implemented. AbstractObservableWithUpstream is a small convenience and not necessary for external implementors.
This may help you. I implement operator RxJava2 to handle APiError. I used lift operator.
See the example.
public final class ApiClient implements ApiClientInterface {
...
#NonNull
#Override
public Observable<ActivateResponse> activate(String email, EmailData emailLinkData) {
return myApiService.activate(email, emailData)
.lift(getApiErrorTransformer())
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io());
}
private <T>ApiErrorOperator<T> getApiErrorTransformer() {
return new ApiErrorOperator<>(gson, networkService);
}
}
And then you can find custom operator
public final class ApiErrorOperator<T> implements ObservableOperator<T, T> {
private static final String TAG = "ApiErrorOperator";
private final Gson gson;
private final NetworkService networkService;
public ApiErrorOperator(#NonNull Gson gson, #NonNull NetworkService networkService) {
this.gson = gson;
this.networkService = networkService;
}
#Override
public Observer<? super T> apply(Observer<? super T> observer) throws Exception {
return new Observer<T>() {
#Override
public void onSubscribe(Disposable d) {
observer.onSubscribe(d);
}
#Override
public void onNext(T value) {
observer.onNext(value);
}
#Override
public void onError(Throwable e) {
Log.e(TAG, "onError", e);
if (e instanceof HttpException) {
try {
HttpException error = (HttpException) e;
Response response = error.response();
String errorBody = response.errorBody().string();
ErrorResponse errorResponse = gson.fromJson(errorBody.trim(), ErrorResponse.class);
ApiException exception = new ApiException(errorResponse, response);
observer.onError(exception);
} catch (IOException exception) {
observer.onError(exception);
}
} else if (!networkService.isNetworkAvailable()) {
observer.onError(new NetworkException(ErrorResponse.builder()
.setErrorCode("")
.setDescription("No Network Connection Error")
.build()));
} else {
observer.onError(e);
}
}
#Override
public void onComplete() {
observer.onComplete();
}
};
}
}
I need to recollect some data calling to a method is connecting to a webservice.
problem: Imagine I need to update the content text of a label control according to this remote gathered information. Until all this data is recollected I'm not going to be able to show the label.
desired: I'd like to first show the label with a default text, and as I'm receiving this information I want to update the label content (please, don't take this description as a sucked code, I'm trying to brief my real situation).
I'd like to create an observable sequence of these methods. Nevertheless, these method have not the same signature. For example:
int GetInt() {
return service.GetInt();
}
string GetString() {
return service.GetString();
}
string GetString2 {
return service.GetString2();
}
These methods are not async.
Is it possible to create an observable sequence of these methods?
How could I create it?
Nevertheless, which's the best alternative to achieve my goal?
Creating custom observable sequences can be achieved with the Observable.Create. An example using your requirements is shown below:
private int GetInt()
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
return 1;
}
private string GetString()
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
return "Hello";
}
private string GetString2()
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
return "World!";
}
private IObservable<string> RetrieveContent()
{
return Observable.Create<string>(
observer =>
{
observer.OnNext("Default Text");
int value = GetInt();
observer.OnNext($"Got value {value}. Getting string...");
string string1 = GetString();
observer.OnNext($"Got string {string1}. Getting second string...");
string string2 = GetString2();
observer.OnNext(string2);
observer.OnCompleted();
return Disposable.Empty;
}
);
}
Note how I have emulated network delay by introducing a Thread.Sleep call into each of the GetXXX methods. In order to ensure your UI doesn't hang when subscribing to this observable, you should subscribe as follows:
IDisposable subscription = RetrieveContent()
.SubscribeOn(TaskPoolScheduler.Default)
.ObserveOn(DispatcherScheduler.Current)
.Subscribe(text => Label = text);
This code uses the .SubscribeOn(TaskPoolScheduler.Default) extension method to use a TaskPool thread to start the observable sequence and will be blocked by the calls the Thread.Sleep but, as this is not the UI thread, your UI will remain responsive. Then, to ensure we update the UI on the UI thread, we use the ".ObserveOn(DispatcherScheduler.Current)" to invoke the updates onto the UI thread before setting the (data bound) Label property.
Hope this is what you were looking for, but leave a comment if not and I'll try to help further.
I would look at creating a wrapper class for your service to expose the values as separate observables.
So, start with a service interface:
public interface IService
{
int GetInt();
string GetString();
string GetString2();
}
...and then you write ServiceWrapper:
public class ServiceWrapper : IService
{
private IService service;
private Subject<int> subjectGetInt = new Subject<int>();
private Subject<string> subjectGetString = new Subject<string>();
private Subject<string> subjectGetString2 = new Subject<string>();
public ServiceWrapper(IService service)
{
this.service = service;
}
public int GetInt()
{
var value = service.GetInt();
this.subjectGetInt.OnNext(value);
return value;
}
public IObservable<int> GetInts()
{
return this.subjectGetInt.AsObservable();
}
public string GetString()
{
var value = service.GetString();
this.subjectGetString.OnNext(value);
return value;
}
public IObservable<string> GetStrings()
{
return this.subjectGetString.AsObservable();
}
public string GetString2()
{
var value = service.GetString2();
this.subjectGetString2.OnNext(value);
return value;
}
public IObservable<string> GetString2s()
{
return this.subjectGetString2.AsObservable();
}
}
Now, assuming that you current service is called Service, you would write this code to set things up:
IService service = new Service();
ServiceWrapper wrapped = new ServiceWrapper(service); // Still an `IService`
var subscription =
Observable
.Merge(
wrapped.GetInts().Select(x => x.ToString()),
wrapped.GetStrings(),
wrapped.GetString2s())
.Subscribe(x => label.Text = x);
IService wrappedService = wrapped;
Now pass wrappedService instead of service to your code. It's still calling the underlying service code so no need for a re-write, yet you still are getting the observables that you want.
This is effectively a gang of four decorator pattern.
Now I know properties do not support async/await for good reasons. But sometimes you need to kick off some additional background processing from a property setter - a good example is data binding in a MVVM scenario.
In my case, I have a property that is bound to the SelectedItem of a ListView. Of course I immediately set the new value to the backing field and the main work of the property is done. But the change of the selected item in the UI needs also to trigger a REST service call to get some new data based on the now selected item.
So I need to call an async method. I can't await it, obviously, but I also do not want to fire and forget the call as I could miss exceptions during the async processing.
Now my take is the following:
private Feed selectedFeed;
public Feed SelectedFeed
{
get
{
return this.selectedFeed;
}
set
{
if (this.selectedFeed != value)
{
this.selectedFeed = value;
RaisePropertyChanged();
Task task = GetFeedArticles(value.Id);
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
if (t.Status != TaskStatus.RanToCompletion)
{
MessengerInstance.Send<string>("Error description", "DisplayErrorNotification");
}
});
}
}
}
Ok so besides the fact I could move out the handling from the setter to a synchronous method, is this the correct way to handle such a scenario? Is there a better, less cluttered solution I do not see?
Would be very interested to see some other takes on this problem. I'm a bit curious that I was not able to find any other discussions on this concrete topic as it seems very common to me in MVVM apps that make heavy use of databinding.
I have a NotifyTaskCompletion type in my AsyncEx library that is essentially an INotifyPropertyChanged wrapper for Task/Task<T>. AFAIK there is very little information currently available on async combined with MVVM, so let me know if you find any other approaches.
Anyway, the NotifyTaskCompletion approach works best if your tasks return their results. I.e., from your current code sample it looks like GetFeedArticles is setting data-bound properties as a side effect instead of returning the articles. If you make this return Task<T> instead, you can end up with code like this:
private Feed selectedFeed;
public Feed SelectedFeed
{
get
{
return this.selectedFeed;
}
set
{
if (this.selectedFeed == value)
return;
this.selectedFeed = value;
RaisePropertyChanged();
Articles = NotifyTaskCompletion.Create(GetFeedArticlesAsync(value.Id));
}
}
private INotifyTaskCompletion<List<Article>> articles;
public INotifyTaskCompletion<List<Article>> Articles
{
get { return this.articles; }
set
{
if (this.articles == value)
return;
this.articles = value;
RaisePropertyChanged();
}
}
private async Task<List<Article>> GetFeedArticlesAsync(int id)
{
...
}
Then your databinding can use Articles.Result to get to the resulting collection (which is null until GetFeedArticlesAsync completes). You can use NotifyTaskCompletion "out of the box" to data-bind to errors as well (e.g., Articles.ErrorMessage) and it has a few boolean convenience properties (IsSuccessfullyCompleted, IsFaulted) to handle visibility toggles.
Note that this will correctly handle operations completing out of order. Since Articles actually represents the asynchronous operation itself (instead of the results directly), it is updated immediately when a new operation is started. So you'll never see out-of-date results.
You don't have to use data binding for your error handling. You can make whatever semantics you want by modifying the GetFeedArticlesAsync; for example, to handle exceptions by passing them to your MessengerInstance:
private async Task<List<Article>> GetFeedArticlesAsync(int id)
{
try
{
...
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessengerInstance.Send<string>("Error description", "DisplayErrorNotification");
return null;
}
}
Similarly, there's no notion of automatic cancellation built-in, but again it's easy to add to GetFeedArticlesAsync:
private CancellationTokenSource getFeedArticlesCts;
private async Task<List<Article>> GetFeedArticlesAsync(int id)
{
if (getFeedArticlesCts != null)
getFeedArticlesCts.Cancel();
using (getFeedArticlesCts = new CancellationTokenSource())
{
...
}
}
This is an area of current development, so please do make improvements or API suggestions!
public class AsyncRunner
{
public static void Run(Task task, Action<Task> onError = null)
{
if (onError == null)
{
task.ContinueWith((task1, o) => { }, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
else
{
task.ContinueWith(onError, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
}
}
Usage within the property
private NavigationMenuItem _selectedMenuItem;
public NavigationMenuItem SelectedMenuItem
{
get { return _selectedMenuItem; }
set
{
_selectedMenuItem = val;
AsyncRunner.Run(NavigateToMenuAsync(_selectedMenuItem));
}
}
private async Task NavigateToMenuAsync(NavigationMenuItem newNavigationMenu)
{
//call async tasks...
}
In order to get PropertyChanged to fire in NUnit tests, I had to set ShouldAlwaysRaiseInpcOnUserInterfaceThread(false). Are there any repercussions to this when I later use the class as a ViewModel? Maybe I should be setting up a user interface thread in NUnit? Help!
public interface ISomething : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
}
public class Something : MvxNotifyPropertyChanged, ISomething
{
public Something()
{
ShouldAlwaysRaiseInpcOnUserInterfaceThread(false);
}
private int _num;
public int Num
{
get { return _num; }
set { if (_num != value) { _num = value; RaisePropertyChanged(() => Num); }
}
}
By default MvvmCross marshals calls like RaisePropertyChanged onto the UI thread for the convenience of developers.
If you want to disable this on an individual object, you can call ShouldAlwaysRaiseInpcOnUserInterfaceThread(false); for that object (this is a method call rather than a property as properties on ViewModel objects are generally reserved for INotifyPropertyChanged use)
If you want to disable this by default on all objects then you can use Mvx.Resolve<IMvxSettings>().AlwaysRaiseInpcOnUserInterfaceThread = false;
If during testing you want to provide a mock implementation for the UI thread marshalling, then see for example the N=29 video in http://mvvmcross.blogspot.co.uk/ - with some MockDispatcher code inside https://github.com/MvvmCross/NPlus1DaysOfMvvmCross/tree/master/N-29-TipCalcTest/TipCalcTest.Tests