In my code I have the following:
private ServletModule getModule() {
return new ServletModule() {
#Override
public void configureServlets() {
filter("/*").through(PersistFilter.class);
}
};
}
It does not compile allthough it comes straight from the guice-persist site. The error message I get from the compiler is:
Application.java:[47,28] error: cannot access Filter
Netbeans tells me this:
method FilterKeyBindingBuilder.through(Class) is not applicable
(actual argument Class cannot be converted to Class by method invocation conversion)
I checked the code of PersistFilter and it does extend Filter.
Any ideas?
This was a stupid thing. The servlet api was not being pulled in. Guice-persist needs it
Related
I am trying parse a HL7 REF I12 message with local customization(NZ).
When I tried using the GenericParser, I keep getting Validation exceptions.
For example for the segment below, I keep get the output
ca.uhn.hl7v2.validation.ValidationException: Validation failed:
Primitive value '(08)569-7555' requires to be empty or a US phone
number
PRD|PP|See T Tan^""^""^^""|""^^^^""^New Zealand||(08)569-7555||14134^NZMC
My question is:
Is there a way to avoid the validation by using the conformance class
generator
Is it possible to create own validation classes using
CustomModelClasses?
In either case, is there any example code for that or tutorial example documentation?
If disabling validation altogether is an option for your application, then you can set the validation context to use NoValidation.
See this thread in the hapi developers mailing list: http://sourceforge.net/p/hl7api/mailman/message/31244500/
Here is an example of how to disable validation:
HapiContext context = new DefaultHapiContext();
context.setValidationContext(new NoValidation());
GenericParser parser = context.getGenericParser();
String message = ...
try {
parser.parse(message);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
If you still require validation, but just want to change the validator for specific rules, then you'll have to create your own implementation of ValidationContext. This would be done by sub classing ca.uhn.hl7v2.validation.builder.support.NoValidationBuilder and overriding the configure method and use this to instantiate an instance of ValidationContextImpl.
For an example of how to implement the configure method in your subclass of NoValidationBuilder, see the source code for ca.uhn.hl7v2.validation.builder.support.DefaultValidationBuilder. This is the default validation context that is generating the error message you're seeing. To make it easier for you, I'm including the class listing here:
public class DefaultValidationBuilder extends DefaultValidationWithoutTNBuilder {
#Override
protected void configure() {
super.configure();
forAllVersions()
.primitive("TN")
.refersToSection("Version 2.4 Section 2.9.45")
.is(emptyOr(usPhoneNumber()));
}
}
Notice this is the implementation of the usPhoneNumber method defined in BuilderSupport:
public Predicate usPhoneNumber() {
return matches("(\\d{1,2} )?(\\(\\d{3}\\))?\\d{3}-\\d{4}(X\\d{1,5})?(B\\d{1,5})?(C.*)?",
"a US phone number");
}
Is it possible to do Inter Type Declarations with AspectJ on Compiled Class Files at Load Time Weaving?
As an example: I compile some Groovy code and want to add fields or methods with IDT.
Update:
Oh my goodness, you do not need reflection to access members or execute methods. Eclipse shows errors in the editor, but you may just ignore them, the code compiles and runs fine anyway. So the aspect is really much more strightforward and simple:
public aspect LTWAspect {
public static String Application.staticField = "value of static field";
public String Application.normalField = "value of normal field";
public void Application.myMethod() {
System.out.println(normalField);
}
void around() : execution(void Application.main(..)) {
System.out.println("around before");
proceed();
System.out.println("around after");
System.out.println(Application.staticField);
new Application().myMethod();
}
}
Original answer:
Yes, but you have a hen-and-egg problem there, i.e. you cannot just reference the newly introduced fields from your LTW aspect code without reflection. (The last sentence is not true, see update above.) Plus, in order to make your LTW aspect compile, you need the classes to be woven on the project's build path so as to be able to reference them. Example:
Java project
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("main");
}
}
AspectJ project
import org.aspectj.lang.SoftException;
public aspect LTWAspect {
public static String Application.staticField = "value of static field";
public String Application.normalField = "value of normal field";
public void Application.myMethod() {
try {
System.out.println(Application.class.getDeclaredField("normalField").get(this));
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new SoftException(e);
}
}
void around() : execution(void Application.main(..)) {
System.out.println("around before");
proceed();
System.out.println("around after");
try {
System.out.println(Application.class.getDeclaredField("staticField").get(null));
Application.class.getDeclaredMethod("myMethod", null).invoke(new Application());
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new SoftException(e);
}
}
}
So, e.g. in Eclipse you need to put the Java project on the AspectJ project's build path under "Projects" because only then it can see Java class Application on which you want to declare members. After compilation you just start the Java project and do LTW on the aspect project (don't forget an aop-ajc.xml referencing LTWAspect).
In my example above I declare a static member, a non-static ("normal") member and a non-static method. My advice prints the static member and calls the non-static method, both via reflection. The non-static method then prints the non-static member, again via reflection. This is not nice, but it works and proves the ITD in combination with LTW is possible. There might be a more elegant way, but if so I am unaware of it. (Update: There is a more elegant way: Just ignore the errors marked by Eclipse IDE, see above.)
Program output
around before
main
around after
value of static field
value of normal field
I know that GWT doesn't emulate this method, but I need smth that provide its functionality.
I have tried next approach:
private static <T extends Widget> T createWidget(Class<T> widgetClass) {
return GWT.create(widgetClass);
}
But when I try to compile it I get an error:
Only class literals may be used as arguments to GWT.create()
So, how can I write a foresaid method that will emulate Class#newInstance?
GWT.create() always needs the class literal as argument, which means that you has to pass this: GWT.create(MyClass.class) and no other thing.
This is so because the gwt compiler has to decide which class to pick up in compile time, note that in your code the class is passed in runtime.
If you are planing to use GWT.create for a reduced and well known set of classes you can do something like that:
private static <T extends Widget> T createWidget(Class<T> widgetClass) {
if (ClassA.class.equals(widgetClass)) {
return GWT.create(ClassA.class);
} else if (ClassA.class.equals(widgetClass)) {
return GWT.create(ClassB.class);
}
return null;
}
I am going to file this as a bug report, but I wanted to check if someone here can see something wrong with what I am doing.
When you expose an instance method from a GWT class through JSNI, this works as expected in JavaScript. Since we are cross compiling Java, I would instead expect this to be bound to the instance automatically. For example:
package com.test;
class Foo {
public void instanceFunction() {
this.otherFunction() // will cause an error when called from JSNI!
}
public void otherFunction() {
// does some stuff
}
public native JavaScriptObject getInstanceFunction() /*-{
return this.#com.test.Foo::instanceFunction();
}-*/;
}
Currently the workaround is to bind the function yourself (not very portable):
public native JavaScriptObject getInstanceFunction() /*-{
return this.#com.test.Foo::instanceFunction().bind(this);
}-*/;
This can also be seen as preference, some may prefer that the functions remain unbound. I would say the current functionality is unintuitave and unnecessary. I cannot imagine a use case for having an unbound this directly in Java code. Also, some browsers do not implement bind(1), so my workaround is not robust.
If you want a portable bind, it's as easy as:
var that = this;
return $entry(function() {
return that.#com.test.Foo::instanceFunction()();
});
I'm using GWT 2.4. I have this class, which overrides the clone() method ...
public class Attribute implements Serializable, Cloneable {
...
public Object clone() {
Object ret = null;
try {
ret = super.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
} // try
return ret;
}
Sadly, when I try and run my GWT test class, I get the compilation error
[ERROR] Line 113: The method clone() is undefined for the type Object
Anyone know how I can rewrite the above to avoid the compile errors while preserving the functionality? Thanks, - Dave
Object.clone is not supported by the GWT compiler. If you really need support for it you can follow a work around suggested in this GWT issue: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5068