I use GWT + GWTP in my application. I have some places with nested presenters. I would like to execute some code after loading of a place (after place reveal is complete with all of contents and server calls, alongwith all nested presenters). Scheduling deferred or finally command does not work and gets called before place load is complete.
Is there any way to detect the completion of revealing of place?
Since you'll be waiting for a number of server calls to complete, I suggest you send an event through the EventBus upon completion of your server calls. The root presenter in your presenter hierarchy will subscribe to those events. Once all required events have been received by the root presenter, you'll know that all server calls have ended.
Related
I'm a beginner to the flux model but I think I understand it at a high level:
event creator -> events -> dispatch -> store -> view and around we go!
Given that the flux model supports multiple stores, if you have say an event loop that dispatches to 2+ stores, that in turn updates the same view.
How do you manage any inadvertent flicker that would come from that process?
I haven't quite enabled/used react yet (I assume a catch all answer will be that react handles this heavy lifting part of reducing this) but conceptually how could this work outside a specific implementation.
Since store changes are applied serially across stores, do you just wait until all the stores are down processing the dispatcher, and then allow them individually to fire all their changes? Even then you still would loop through and dispatch events at the end, and you'd still potentially have overlapping updates to the UI.
Thanks!
You have different options here:
The vanilla solution is to utilize a waitFor() function in your store-structure, and ensure that in the end each component has only one store it listens to. More or less like this:
Caveat is that your action types and store structures need to be in sync: Each action needs to communicate to all stores that are included in a waitFor cycle. The example in the picture will fail to trigger a render. The top-most store is not listening to the action from dispatcher, and the right store will keep waiting for update. Also, the red line may cause a similar dead end, if it is only 1 of the components. My way of dealing with this is: make all stores in the first line listen to ALL actions, and if the action is irrelevant: emit change.
The other option is to consolidate your data into a single store.
This does not make the issue go away: you need to handle the dependency issues inside the single store. But it does take away the hassle of many actions, many waitFors, and many change emissions..
Remember that the action is processed synchronously - all stores will have emitted, the controller views with have called setState, etc. before the stack unwinds and browser gets a chance to re-render the DOM, so flicker is not possible (the browser won't render in the middle of a function running, since otherwise all DOM manipulation code would cause random flickering).
However, as you say, there will potentially be multiple stores emitting changes, and multiple components listen to them, and hence you may end up calling 'setState' multiple times (even on the same component). This sounds inefficient, but under most circumstances it isn't. As long as the current action originated from an event that came from React (e.g. an event handler added to a component in the JSX), React automatically batches all calls to setState and only does the re-render to the DOM (i.e. any required DOM updates) once, immediately (and synchronously) after you have finished processing the event.
There is a case to be aware of - if you dispatch an action from something outside of a React event handler (e.g. a promise.then, an AJAX callback, setTimeout callback, etc.) then React will have to re-render for every single call to setState in that function, since it doesn't know when else to do it. You can avoid this by using the undocumented batched rendering feature (0.14, note that 0.13 had a different API for this):
ReactDOM.unstable_batchedUpdates(myFunctionThatDispatchesActions);
An alternative might be to use an off-the-shelf Flux implementation which does this for you already. See e.g. https://github.com/acdlite/redux-batched-updates
I could not find my answer in this thread:
Using the GWT Scheduler
The GWT Scheduler class has scheduleDeferred API which executes after the browser event loop returns. The scheduleFinally API allows me to execute code before the control returns to the browser event loop.
How do I decide whether I should use scheduleDeferred or scheduleFinally? Is there a code example which shows the difference in behavior?
To understand this, you need to first get the basic idea of an event loop. When you write code to run in the browser, you don't write this loop - it lives in the browser, waiting for the user to do something. When that something happens (mouse event, keyboard event, AJAX call returns, setTimeout goes off), the loop calls into your code, and lets you handle it however you would like to.
So first, we have scheduleDeferred, which is a way to notify the browser that we have some code to run soon, but not in this loop. This is a handy way to let the browser regain control, render some content, and then give you control again. This can be helpful to break up calculations into several chunks to avoid any "long running script" errors, or can be an early attempt at animation (Note: use the actual requestAnimationFrame api from the browser, or AnimationScheduler.get().requestAnimationFrame in GWT instead for this).
Next, there are two interesting places in the loop where you might have code that you would like to run - either right as the browser transfers control to you, or right before you return control back again. Of these two, the end is usually more interesting: scheduleFinally. This lets you run some code inside the current event loop, but not until the very end of it. CssResource uses this strategy in its ensureInjected() method - when you run several different calls to this method, rather than poking the DOM several times, it batches them all up and runs them at the end of the event loop, using scheduleFinally.
The last one, the beginning of each event loop is managed by another method - scheduleEntry. In theory, this could be used in conjunction with finally to reimplement a simple version of AngularJS's binding wiring.
//event comes in to GWT from the $entry method, and follows these steps
try {
// 1. run registered scheduleEntry calls
// 2. run the current event or callback that the browser called us for
} finally {
// 3. run registered scheduleFinally calls
}
Any call to scheduleDeferred during those steps has added a call to the next event loop, to run as part of #2.
hi i am developing a sms App for my client. so far i have put down this plan in place.
1)The app keeps polling the server with an asynchronous request so that it does not interfere with the user interface.
2) for sending sms i am currently using synchronous request , depending on the reply from server i have do various things. i am showing the spinning circle and make the user wait until i get the response from server.
my client has problem with point 2.
The client says as soon as the send sms button is clicked it has to go back to the homescreen and should be able to navigate to any screen and do all other things that the app offers. i could have used async request , but i am not sure how to handle the responses from the server when i am on different view controller other than the one request is called from.
Can somebody help me on this.
Thank You.
The classic way of handling the response of an asynchronous action is either using delegation or notifications. Do not use a singleton. This breaks modularity and decoupling of different view controllers.
Roadmap of how to handle asynchronous actions
Register for the response of the asynchronous actions. This can be setting the delegate of the requesting object e.g. NSURLConnection to the view controller, which is typically self in this context. The othe possibility is that you register for the notification which is fired by the requesting object if things have happend e.g. when a download is finished or an error occurred.
Implement the delegate methods or the notifications to update your model and/or your user interface. Be aware that updating the UI has to happen on your main thread.
Start the asynchronous action. What happens in the background is that a separate thread is spawned or an operation is dispatched using GCD. These are implementation details and do not bother you.
Wait for the answer, which will result in one of your implemented methods to be executed which you then use to update what has changed.
Difference between notifications and delegates
The two differences between delegates and notifications is that delegate is a one-to-one connection between the delegate and the delegating object. Notifications are posted application wide and can be observed by as many objects as needed creating a one-to-many connection. Think about this as a broadcast. The second main difference is that delegation can be used to transfer information back from the delegate to the delegating object. Meaning that the delegating object asks the delegate for certain information. Typical example would be the data source of an UITableView. Notifications however are a one way street. The information flows from the posting object to the observing objects. This makes sense because think about the situation where you would have more than one observer and each would give feedback to the posting objects. Which one would be the right one?
In your case you would have to look up the delegate methods of the asynchronous HTTP request object and implement them accordingly.
Maybe you can try ASIHTTpRequest , It has Sync an Async request
If you using Async request , you can do anything after you press a button to do a request .
Check this
The solution depends on the response processing.... if you are just showing user that the sms sending is failed/successful than you can do it in any general utility class that shows alert.. but for this you have to create the singletone instance of your connection class so delegate(class itself) don't die when the response comes back.......
For this we need to keep track of currentViewController ....... we can do this by creating a reference ........ id currentViewController in appDelegate(with setter/getters).......... so it could be accessible in everywhere application........
its referred object should be changed each time when user changes the viewController.... that will help us to know on which viewController user is currently working.
than when the singeltone class of connection finished its response loading we can use this currentViewController with your desired viewController.
I am not sure how you are using different view controller....... pushing it/ presenting it or adding its view.....
I'm using the MVVM-Light toolkit and storing my ViewModelLocator in App.Resources. I noticed that my ViewModelLocator class gets created before the Application_Launching event gets fired, and according to this Link from Microsoft you shouldn't make any Network calls or access Isolated Storage until after the Application_Loading event has fired and the application is loaded.
So my problem is that my ViewModelLocator creates my ViewModels in its constructor and the ViewModels in turn are making Service calls and accessing IsolatedStorage. So how are you suppose to do this properly? And how do I wait for the app to be "Loaded" when there is no Application_Loaded event?
My understanding is if the load calls are asynchronous, it meets your requirments.
Otherwise, you can always implement your own flag system/ delayed delegate calls after load event completes.
What is the necessity of using Application.DoEvents and when we should use it?
Application.DoEvents is usually used to make sure that events get handled periodicaly when you're performing some long-running operation on the UI thread.
A better solution is just not to do that. Perform long-running operations on separate threads, marshalling to the UI thread (either using Control.BeginInvoke/Invoke or with BackgroundWorker) when you need to update the UI.
Application.DoEvents introduces the possibility of re-entrancy, which can lead to very hard-to-understand bugs.
Windows maintains a queue to hold various events like click, resize, close, etc. While a control is responding to an event, all other events are held back in the queue. So if your application is taking unduly long to process a button-click, rest of the application would appear to freeze. Consequently it is possible that your application appears unresponsive while it is doing some heavy processing in response to an event. While you should ideally do heavy processing in an asynchronous manner to ensure that the UI doesn’t freeze, a quick and easy solution is to just call Application.DoEvents() periodically to allow pending events to be sent to your application.
For good windows application, end user doesn’t like when any form of application are freezing out while performing larger/heavyweight operation. User always wants application run smoothly and in responsive manner rather than freezing UI. But after googling i found that Application.DoEvents() is not a good practice to use in application more frequently so instead this events it’s better to use BackGround Worker Thread for performing long running task without freezing windows.
You can get better idea if you practically look it. Just copy following code and check application with and without putting Application.DoEvents().
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
For i As Integer = 0 To 1000
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100)
ListBox1.Items.Add(i.ToString())
Application.DoEvents()
Next
End Sub
Imho you should more less never use it, as you might end up with very unexpected behavior.
Just generated code is ok. Things like you are executing again the event handler you are currently in,because the user pressed a key twice etc etc.
If you want to refresh a control to display the current process you should explicitly call .Update on that control in instead of calling Application.DoEvents.