Just wondering if having a static dozer mapper like this can leads to concurrency errors :
public static Mapper mapper = new DozerBeanMapper();
public static MyDTO toDTO(MyEntity e) {
MyDTO dto = mapper.map(e, MyDTO.class);
return dto;
}
Or should I always use this code :
public static MyDTO toDTO(MyEntity e) {
Mapper mapper = new DozerBeanMapper();
MyDTO dto = mapper.map(e, MyDTO.class);
return dto;
}
The method is used in an #Stateless session bean of a JBoss Server, it can be accessed concurrently. The fact is I dont really know if Dozer makes use of static variables or instance variables in the library to decide if I can/should use a static Mapper or create a new instance at every call.
Dozer instance could be static. If you would create new instance for each request the performance will be much worse, since lots of the caches will be initialised every time. ConcurrencyErrors may be encountered either due to bugs in Custom Converters or internal Dozer problems.
From the documentation, DozerMapper instance should be built as singleton. The DozerBeanMapper is thread safe so you can use at any risks with multiple threads.
To be sure you can also use DozerBeanMapperSingletonWrapper.getInstance(); This will handle the singleton part for you.
I don't thinks it is a really good idea to use the mapper as public static field.
You could also use Selma, to handle youre mapping. This is a new library based on an Annotation processor that generates the mapping code at compile time. With it youre code will look like that:
// Configure the mapping
#Mapper
public interface DtoMapper {
MyDTO toDTO(MyEntity e);
}
// Retrieve the mapper
public static DtoMapper mapper = Selma.getMapper(DtoMapper.class);
// and some where in the code use
mapper.toDto(entity);
Related
I am trying to use the in built methods of MongoRepository<T,ID> interface to interact with mongo.
interface MovieRepository : MongoRepository<Movie, String> {
}
But when I try to implement the "MovieRepository" using class. Its asking me to implement all the member functions defined in "MongoRepository" as well
class ControllerClass(private val MovieRepository: MovieRepository): MovieRepository {}
This is what i get when i initialize my controller class:
Class 'ControllerClass' is not abstract and does not implement abstract member public abstract fun <S : Movie!> save(entity: S): S
Is there any way so that i do not need to defined all those MongoRepository's functions again in my ControllerClass?
You don't usually implement a repository interface yourself: you let Spring do it for you!
First, you define your interface, as you have done:
interface MovieRepository : MongoRepository<Movie, String> {
// Add any abstract methods you'll need here…
}
Then, you autowire a property of that type. In Kotlin, you can either do it in the primary constructor, e.g.:
#Controller
class ControllerClass #Autowired constructor(
private val movieRepository: MovieRepository
) {
// …code…
}
Or as a plain property. (In this case, because you can't specify an initial value, you have to make the property a var; it must either be nullable — requiring !! everywhere you use it — or, better, make it lateinit.)
#Controller
class ControllerClass {
#Autowired private lateinit var movieRepository: MovieRepository
// …code…
}
Spring will then create some synthetic class implementing that interface, and set your property to it. (You don't need to worry about how it does that — just as you don't need to worry about all the other magic it does, much of which involves creating synthetic subclasses. That's why Spring objects generally need to be made open — and why there's a Spring plugin which takes care of doing that.)
It's more usual to use the repository in a service class, and then call that from your controller class — at least, that pattern tends to scale better, and be easier to follow and to test. But doing so directly should work too. Either way, you can call whichever repository method you need, e.g. movieRepository.findAll().
See the Spring docs; they use Java, but it's mostly trivial to convert to Kotlin.
I'm trying to implement passive attributes in an ASP.NET Web API. The filter I'm implementing has a dependency on a repository, which itself has a dependency on a custom DbContext.
In the post it says that you can resolve the component with a DI container, but also that the code should be invoked from Application_Start.
I'm not sure how to implement this, while taking advantage of the DI container's lifetime management capabilities (so that a new DbContext will be used per request). Would injecting an abstract factory be a good solution for this? or is there something simpler that I'm missing.
You can resolve this issue by sliding a Decoraptor in between the Filter and the Repository.
Not knowing a lot about your code, you should be able to define a Decoraptorepository using an Abstract Factory:
public class Decoraptorepository : IRepository
{
private readonly IFactory<IRepository> factory;
public Decoraptorepository(IFactory<IRepository> factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
// Just guessing IRepository's member(s) here...
public void Save(Foo foo)
{
this.factory.Create().Save(foo);
}
// other members...
}
This enables your Filter to stay a Singleton, while the actual Repository is being created in a Transient manner.
If you need to dispose of objects too, please refer to the follow-up article on how to decommission Transient objects from within a Decoraptor.
Trying to clean up some nasty code, for which we dont have the source code. Imagine something like this:
public class Driver{
private String paramA;
private String paramB;
new Driver(HugeAndOverbloatedObject object)
{
paramA = object.getSubObject4711().getParamX();
paramB = object.getSubObject4712().getParamY();
}
}
This third library has this all over the place: tight coupling via constructors, eventhough the classes are hardly related. The rude combination of private members and forced constructor inheritance make the extension of the code virtually impossible without creating "sloppy" constructor parameter objects.
So I am trying to manipulate the classes via AspectJ and compile time weaving, so I can slim down on the constructors, to something like this:
Driver driver = new Driver("paramA", "paramB");
I think this should be possible, and I have made some progress. If I have something like this:
public aspect NewConstructor {
Driver.new(String parameterA, String parameterB){
//New Constructor Code
}
}
and run this through the weaver I actually find a new constructor in the driver, but not quite as I expected.
Issue: Unexpected third Parameter in the woven class
I was hoping I can invoke it with two parameters:
new Driver("paramA", "paramB")
Instead I need to invoke it with three parameters:
new Driver("paramA", "paramB", new NewConstructor())
Why do I need to instantiate a new instance of the aspect and pass it as an argument? Can this be prevented?
Something odd is going on here. You should not need to add the aspect as a third argument to the constructor. In fact, when I try this myself using the following class and aspect, I do not get any compile errors:
Java class:
package pack;
public class Driver {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Driver("paramA", "paramB");
}
}
Aspect:
package pack;
public aspect NewConstructor {
public pack.Driver.new(String parameterA, String parameterB){
}
}
Are your Java class and aspect in different projects? Are you using an aspect path and/or in path? Are you using load time weaving?
If after doing a full build of your project you still see the probem, it's worth raising a bug for AspectJ.
I have created a very basic application. I have only one service class and a corresponding Async class which contains only Java types and no custom classes. But still I get the serialization exception.
My service class looks like this.
public interface MyService extends RemoteService {
public String getName();
public Object getAdditionalDetials(ArrayList<String> ids);
public Date getJoiningDate();
}
My async interface looks like this
public interface MyServiceAsync {
public void getName(AsyncCallback<String> callback);
public void getAdditionalDetials(ArrayList<String> ids, AsyncCallback<Object> callback);
public void getJoiningDate(AsyncCallback<Date> callback);
}
I know I am making some stupid mistake.
I am Naive in gwt rpc and serialization mechanism, but will try to answer your question.
Whenever you write classes involving an RPC, GWT creates a Serialization Policy File. The serialization policy file contains a whitelist of allowed types which may be serialized.
In your Service methods, all the types you mention and refer will be automatically added to this list if they implements IsSerializable. In your case you have used the following two methods,
public String getName();
public Date getJoiningDate();
Here you have used String and Date as your return types and hence it is added to your Serialization Policy File. But in the below method their lies a problem,
public Object getAdditionalDetials(Arraylist<String> ids);
Here you have used ArrayList and String that is not a problem and they will be added to your whitelist, but the problem is you have mentioned return type as Object. Here GWT Compiler does not know what type to be added to whitelist or Serialization Policy and hence it wont pass your RPC call. The solution is use mention a class which implements IsSerializable instead of mentioning the return type of type Object.
FWIW, I was having this problem but my 'Object' type was hidden behind generified classes.
So if one of your rpc methods involves a class:
class Xxx<T> implements IsSerializable {...
It needs to change to:
class Xxx<T extends IsSerializable> implements IsSerializable {...
I'm a bit lost with the use of Inject on variable.
I got this code working :
private XXServiceAsync xxServiceAsync;
#Inject
protected IndexViewImpl(EventBus eventBus, XXServiceAsync tableManagementServiceAsync) {
super(eventBus, mapper);
this.xxServiceAsync = xxServiceAsync;
initializeWidgets();
}
With this code, I can call my RPC service wherever I need in the class (On click ...)
I would like to clear a bit the code by injecting direcly in the variable ; doing so :
#Inject
private XXServiceAsync xxServiceAsync;
protected IndexViewImpl(EventBus eventBus) {
super(eventBus, mapper);
initializeWidgets();
}
This always keep the Service to NULL.
Am I doing something wrong ? Is the GIN magic with rpc services meant to be done otherwise?
Thanks!
It is still null at that point, because Gin (and Guice, and other frameworks like this) cannot assign the fields until the constructor has finished running.
Consider how this would look if you were manually wiring the code (remember that Gin/Guice will cheat a little to assign private fields, call non-visible methods):
MyObject obj = new MyObject();//initializeWidgets() runs, too early!
obj.xxServiceAsync = GWT.create(xxService.class);
If you need something in the constructor, pass it into the constructor. If you wont need it right away (such as until asWidget() is called), then a field or setter annotated with #Inject can be helpful.
If you have field level injection you can use an empty #Inject method to do your post-inject initialization. The no-arg injected method will be run after field injections on the class are complete.
#Inject void initialize(){
...
initializeWidgets()
}
Edit: I previously stated that it was run after method injection as well, but testing shows that this is not always the case.