class member returns null after osgi bind method - service

My problem is that in the main class I have some osgi references that work just fine when the class is call. But after that all the references became null. When I close the main windows and call shutdown method, the hubService reference returns null. What do I do wrong here?
private void shutdown() {
if(hubService == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
hubService.shutdownHub(); // why is hubService null?
}
// bind hub service
public synchronized void setHubService(IHubService service) {
hubService = service;
try {
hubService.startHub(PORT, authenticationHandler);
} catch (Exception e) {
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(mainFrame, e.toString(), "Server", JOptionPane.ERROR_MESSAGE);
System.exit(0);
}
}
// remove hub service
public synchronized void unsetHubService(IHubService service) {
hubService.shutdownHub();
hubService = null;
}

If a field can be read and written by multiple threads, you must protect access to read as well as write. Your first method, shutdown, does not protect the read of hubService so that the value of hubService can change between the first read and the second read. You don't show the declaration of the hubService field. You could make it volatile or only read when synchronized (on the same object used to synchronized when writing the field). Then your shutdown implementation could look like:
private volatile IHubService hubService;
private void shutdown() {
IHubService service = hubService; // make a copy of the field in a local variable
if (service != null) // use local var from now on since the field could have changed
service.shutdownHub();
}

I assume your shutdown method is the DS deactivate method? If so, why do you shutdown in the unset method as well in the shutdown method?
Overall the design does not seem very sound. The IHubService is used as a factory and should return some object that is then closed in the deactivate method. You made the IHubService effectively a singleton. Since it must come from another bundle, it should handle its life cycle itself.
Since you also do not use annotations, it is not clear if your set/unset methods are static/dynamic and/or single/multiple. The following code should not have your problems (exammple code with bnd annotations):
#Component public class MyImpl {
IHubService hub;
#Activate
void activate() {
hubService.startHub(PORT, authenticationHandler);
}
#DeActivate
void deactivate() {
hubService.shutdown();
}
#Reference
void setHub(IHubService hub) { this.hub = hub; }
}

Related

In a swift/firebase project, what causes an array to be readable when .observe is used but not when SingleEvent is used? [duplicate]

Whenever I use addListenerForSingleValueEvent with setPersistenceEnabled(true), I only manage to get a local offline copy of DataSnapshot and NOT the updated DataSnapshot from the server.
However, if I use addValueEventListener with setPersistenceEnabled(true), I can get the latest copy of DataSnapshot from the server.
Is this normal for addListenerForSingleValueEvent as it only searches DataSnapshot locally (offline) and removes its listener after successfully retrieving DataSnapshot ONCE (either offline or online)?
Update (2021): There is a new method call (get on Android and getData on iOS) that implement the behavior you'll like want: it first tries to get the latest value from the server, and only falls back to the cache when it can't reach the server. The recommendation to use persistent listeners still applies, but at least there's a cleaner option for getting data once even when you have local caching enabled.
How persistence works
The Firebase client keeps a copy of all data you're actively listening to in memory. Once the last listener disconnects, the data is flushed from memory.
If you enable disk persistence in a Firebase Android application with:
Firebase.getDefaultConfig().setPersistenceEnabled(true);
The Firebase client will keep a local copy (on disk) of all data that the app has recently listened to.
What happens when you attach a listener
Say you have the following ValueEventListener:
ValueEventListener listener = new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot snapshot) {
System.out.println(snapshot.getValue());
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(FirebaseError firebaseError) {
// No-op
}
};
When you add a ValueEventListener to a location:
ref.addValueEventListener(listener);
// OR
ref.addListenerForSingleValueEvent(listener);
If the value of the location is in the local disk cache, the Firebase client will invoke onDataChange() immediately for that value from the local cache. If will then also initiate a check with the server, to ask for any updates to the value. It may subsequently invoke onDataChange() again if there has been a change of the data on the server since it was last added to the cache.
What happens when you use addListenerForSingleValueEvent
When you add a single value event listener to the same location:
ref.addListenerForSingleValueEvent(listener);
The Firebase client will (like in the previous situation) immediately invoke onDataChange() for the value from the local disk cache. It will not invoke the onDataChange() any more times, even if the value on the server turns out to be different. Do note that updated data still will be requested and returned on subsequent requests.
This was covered previously in How does Firebase sync work, with shared data?
Solution and workaround
The best solution is to use addValueEventListener(), instead of a single-value event listener. A regular value listener will get both the immediate local event and the potential update from the server.
A second solution is to use the new get method (introduced in early 2021), which doesn't have this problematic behavior. Note that this method always tries to first fetch the value from the server, so it will take longer to completely. If your value never changes, it might still be better to use addListenerForSingleValueEvent (but you probably wouldn't have ended up on this page in that case).
As a workaround you can also call keepSynced(true) on the locations where you use a single-value event listener. This ensures that the data is updated whenever it changes, which drastically improves the chance that your single-value event listener will see the current value.
So I have a working solution for this. All you have to do is use ValueEventListener and remove the listener after 0.5 seconds to make sure you've grabbed the updated data by then if needed. Realtime database has very good latency so this is safe. See safe code example below;
public class FirebaseController {
private DatabaseReference mRootRef;
private Handler mHandler = new Handler();
private FirebaseController() {
FirebaseDatabase.getInstance().setPersistenceEnabled(true);
mRootRef = FirebaseDatabase.getInstance().getReference();
}
public static FirebaseController getInstance() {
if (sInstance == null) {
sInstance = new FirebaseController();
}
return sInstance;
}
Then some method you'd have liked to use "addListenerForSingleEvent";
public void getTime(final OnTimeRetrievedListener listener) {
DatabaseReference ref = mRootRef.child("serverTime");
ref.addValueEventListener(new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot dataSnapshot) {
if (listener != null) {
// This can be called twice if data changed on server - SO DEAL WITH IT!
listener.onTimeRetrieved(dataSnapshot.getValue(Long.class));
}
// This can be called twice if data changed on server - SO DEAL WITH IT!
removeListenerAfter2(ref, this);
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(DatabaseError databaseError) {
removeListenerAfter2(ref, this);
}
});
}
// ValueEventListener version workaround for addListenerForSingleEvent not working.
private void removeListenerAfter2(DatabaseReference ref, ValueEventListener listener) {
mHandler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
HelperUtil.logE("removing listener", FirebaseController.class);
ref.removeEventListener(listener);
}
}, 500);
}
// ChildEventListener version workaround for addListenerForSingleEvent not working.
private void removeListenerAfter2(DatabaseReference ref, ChildEventListener listener) {
mHandler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
HelperUtil.logE("removing listener", FirebaseController.class);
ref.removeEventListener(listener);
}
}, 500);
}
Even if they close the app before the handler is executed, it will be removed anyways.
Edit: this can be abstracted to keep track of added and removed listeners in a HashMap using reference path as key and datasnapshot as value. You can even wrap a fetchData method that has a boolean flag for "once" if this is true it would do this workaround to get data once, else it would continue as normal.
You're Welcome!
You can create transaction and abort it, then onComplete will be called when online (nline data) or offline (cached data)
I previously created function which worked only if database got connection lomng enough to do synch. I fixed issue by adding timeout. I will work on this and test if this works. Maybe in the future, when I get free time, I will create android lib and publish it, but by then it is the code in kotlin:
/**
* #param databaseReference reference to parent database node
* #param callback callback with mutable list which returns list of objects and boolean if data is from cache
* #param timeOutInMillis if not set it will wait all the time to get data online. If set - when timeout occurs it will send data from cache if exists
*/
fun readChildrenOnlineElseLocal(databaseReference: DatabaseReference, callback: ((mutableList: MutableList<#kotlin.UnsafeVariance T>, isDataFromCache: Boolean) -> Unit), timeOutInMillis: Long? = null) {
var countDownTimer: CountDownTimer? = null
val transactionHandlerAbort = object : Transaction.Handler { //for cache load
override fun onComplete(p0: DatabaseError?, p1: Boolean, data: DataSnapshot?) {
val listOfObjects = ArrayList<T>()
data?.let {
data.children.forEach {
val child = it.getValue(aClass)
child?.let {
listOfObjects.add(child)
}
}
}
callback.invoke(listOfObjects, true)
}
override fun doTransaction(p0: MutableData?): Transaction.Result {
return Transaction.abort()
}
}
val transactionHandlerSuccess = object : Transaction.Handler { //for online load
override fun onComplete(p0: DatabaseError?, p1: Boolean, data: DataSnapshot?) {
countDownTimer?.cancel()
val listOfObjects = ArrayList<T>()
data?.let {
data.children.forEach {
val child = it.getValue(aClass)
child?.let {
listOfObjects.add(child)
}
}
}
callback.invoke(listOfObjects, false)
}
override fun doTransaction(p0: MutableData?): Transaction.Result {
return Transaction.success(p0)
}
}
In the code if time out is set then I set up timer which will call transaction with abort. This transaction will be called even when offline and will provide online or cached data (in this function there is really high chance that this data is cached one).
Then I call transaction with success. OnComplete will be called ONLY if we got response from firebase database. We can now cancel timer (if not null) and send data to callback.
This implementation makes dev 99% sure that data is from cache or is online one.
If you want to make it faster for offline (to don't wait stupidly with timeout when obviously database is not connected) then check if database is connected before using function above:
DatabaseReference connectedRef = FirebaseDatabase.getInstance().getReference(".info/connected");
connectedRef.addValueEventListener(new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot snapshot) {
boolean connected = snapshot.getValue(Boolean.class);
if (connected) {
System.out.println("connected");
} else {
System.out.println("not connected");
}
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(DatabaseError error) {
System.err.println("Listener was cancelled");
}
});
When workinkg with persistence enabled, I counted the times the listener received a call to onDataChange() and stoped to listen at 2 times. Worked for me, maybe helps:
private int timesRead;
private ValueEventListener listener;
private DatabaseReference ref;
private void readFB() {
timesRead = 0;
if (ref == null) {
ref = mFBDatabase.child("URL");
}
if (listener == null) {
listener = new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot dataSnapshot) {
//process dataSnapshot
timesRead++;
if (timesRead == 2) {
ref.removeEventListener(listener);
}
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(DatabaseError databaseError) {
}
};
}
ref.removeEventListener(listener);
ref.addValueEventListener(listener);
}

What causes a cache issue that occurs with observeSingleEvent but not with .observe(DataEventType.value? [duplicate]

Whenever I use addListenerForSingleValueEvent with setPersistenceEnabled(true), I only manage to get a local offline copy of DataSnapshot and NOT the updated DataSnapshot from the server.
However, if I use addValueEventListener with setPersistenceEnabled(true), I can get the latest copy of DataSnapshot from the server.
Is this normal for addListenerForSingleValueEvent as it only searches DataSnapshot locally (offline) and removes its listener after successfully retrieving DataSnapshot ONCE (either offline or online)?
Update (2021): There is a new method call (get on Android and getData on iOS) that implement the behavior you'll like want: it first tries to get the latest value from the server, and only falls back to the cache when it can't reach the server. The recommendation to use persistent listeners still applies, but at least there's a cleaner option for getting data once even when you have local caching enabled.
How persistence works
The Firebase client keeps a copy of all data you're actively listening to in memory. Once the last listener disconnects, the data is flushed from memory.
If you enable disk persistence in a Firebase Android application with:
Firebase.getDefaultConfig().setPersistenceEnabled(true);
The Firebase client will keep a local copy (on disk) of all data that the app has recently listened to.
What happens when you attach a listener
Say you have the following ValueEventListener:
ValueEventListener listener = new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot snapshot) {
System.out.println(snapshot.getValue());
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(FirebaseError firebaseError) {
// No-op
}
};
When you add a ValueEventListener to a location:
ref.addValueEventListener(listener);
// OR
ref.addListenerForSingleValueEvent(listener);
If the value of the location is in the local disk cache, the Firebase client will invoke onDataChange() immediately for that value from the local cache. If will then also initiate a check with the server, to ask for any updates to the value. It may subsequently invoke onDataChange() again if there has been a change of the data on the server since it was last added to the cache.
What happens when you use addListenerForSingleValueEvent
When you add a single value event listener to the same location:
ref.addListenerForSingleValueEvent(listener);
The Firebase client will (like in the previous situation) immediately invoke onDataChange() for the value from the local disk cache. It will not invoke the onDataChange() any more times, even if the value on the server turns out to be different. Do note that updated data still will be requested and returned on subsequent requests.
This was covered previously in How does Firebase sync work, with shared data?
Solution and workaround
The best solution is to use addValueEventListener(), instead of a single-value event listener. A regular value listener will get both the immediate local event and the potential update from the server.
A second solution is to use the new get method (introduced in early 2021), which doesn't have this problematic behavior. Note that this method always tries to first fetch the value from the server, so it will take longer to completely. If your value never changes, it might still be better to use addListenerForSingleValueEvent (but you probably wouldn't have ended up on this page in that case).
As a workaround you can also call keepSynced(true) on the locations where you use a single-value event listener. This ensures that the data is updated whenever it changes, which drastically improves the chance that your single-value event listener will see the current value.
So I have a working solution for this. All you have to do is use ValueEventListener and remove the listener after 0.5 seconds to make sure you've grabbed the updated data by then if needed. Realtime database has very good latency so this is safe. See safe code example below;
public class FirebaseController {
private DatabaseReference mRootRef;
private Handler mHandler = new Handler();
private FirebaseController() {
FirebaseDatabase.getInstance().setPersistenceEnabled(true);
mRootRef = FirebaseDatabase.getInstance().getReference();
}
public static FirebaseController getInstance() {
if (sInstance == null) {
sInstance = new FirebaseController();
}
return sInstance;
}
Then some method you'd have liked to use "addListenerForSingleEvent";
public void getTime(final OnTimeRetrievedListener listener) {
DatabaseReference ref = mRootRef.child("serverTime");
ref.addValueEventListener(new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot dataSnapshot) {
if (listener != null) {
// This can be called twice if data changed on server - SO DEAL WITH IT!
listener.onTimeRetrieved(dataSnapshot.getValue(Long.class));
}
// This can be called twice if data changed on server - SO DEAL WITH IT!
removeListenerAfter2(ref, this);
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(DatabaseError databaseError) {
removeListenerAfter2(ref, this);
}
});
}
// ValueEventListener version workaround for addListenerForSingleEvent not working.
private void removeListenerAfter2(DatabaseReference ref, ValueEventListener listener) {
mHandler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
HelperUtil.logE("removing listener", FirebaseController.class);
ref.removeEventListener(listener);
}
}, 500);
}
// ChildEventListener version workaround for addListenerForSingleEvent not working.
private void removeListenerAfter2(DatabaseReference ref, ChildEventListener listener) {
mHandler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
HelperUtil.logE("removing listener", FirebaseController.class);
ref.removeEventListener(listener);
}
}, 500);
}
Even if they close the app before the handler is executed, it will be removed anyways.
Edit: this can be abstracted to keep track of added and removed listeners in a HashMap using reference path as key and datasnapshot as value. You can even wrap a fetchData method that has a boolean flag for "once" if this is true it would do this workaround to get data once, else it would continue as normal.
You're Welcome!
You can create transaction and abort it, then onComplete will be called when online (nline data) or offline (cached data)
I previously created function which worked only if database got connection lomng enough to do synch. I fixed issue by adding timeout. I will work on this and test if this works. Maybe in the future, when I get free time, I will create android lib and publish it, but by then it is the code in kotlin:
/**
* #param databaseReference reference to parent database node
* #param callback callback with mutable list which returns list of objects and boolean if data is from cache
* #param timeOutInMillis if not set it will wait all the time to get data online. If set - when timeout occurs it will send data from cache if exists
*/
fun readChildrenOnlineElseLocal(databaseReference: DatabaseReference, callback: ((mutableList: MutableList<#kotlin.UnsafeVariance T>, isDataFromCache: Boolean) -> Unit), timeOutInMillis: Long? = null) {
var countDownTimer: CountDownTimer? = null
val transactionHandlerAbort = object : Transaction.Handler { //for cache load
override fun onComplete(p0: DatabaseError?, p1: Boolean, data: DataSnapshot?) {
val listOfObjects = ArrayList<T>()
data?.let {
data.children.forEach {
val child = it.getValue(aClass)
child?.let {
listOfObjects.add(child)
}
}
}
callback.invoke(listOfObjects, true)
}
override fun doTransaction(p0: MutableData?): Transaction.Result {
return Transaction.abort()
}
}
val transactionHandlerSuccess = object : Transaction.Handler { //for online load
override fun onComplete(p0: DatabaseError?, p1: Boolean, data: DataSnapshot?) {
countDownTimer?.cancel()
val listOfObjects = ArrayList<T>()
data?.let {
data.children.forEach {
val child = it.getValue(aClass)
child?.let {
listOfObjects.add(child)
}
}
}
callback.invoke(listOfObjects, false)
}
override fun doTransaction(p0: MutableData?): Transaction.Result {
return Transaction.success(p0)
}
}
In the code if time out is set then I set up timer which will call transaction with abort. This transaction will be called even when offline and will provide online or cached data (in this function there is really high chance that this data is cached one).
Then I call transaction with success. OnComplete will be called ONLY if we got response from firebase database. We can now cancel timer (if not null) and send data to callback.
This implementation makes dev 99% sure that data is from cache or is online one.
If you want to make it faster for offline (to don't wait stupidly with timeout when obviously database is not connected) then check if database is connected before using function above:
DatabaseReference connectedRef = FirebaseDatabase.getInstance().getReference(".info/connected");
connectedRef.addValueEventListener(new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot snapshot) {
boolean connected = snapshot.getValue(Boolean.class);
if (connected) {
System.out.println("connected");
} else {
System.out.println("not connected");
}
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(DatabaseError error) {
System.err.println("Listener was cancelled");
}
});
When workinkg with persistence enabled, I counted the times the listener received a call to onDataChange() and stoped to listen at 2 times. Worked for me, maybe helps:
private int timesRead;
private ValueEventListener listener;
private DatabaseReference ref;
private void readFB() {
timesRead = 0;
if (ref == null) {
ref = mFBDatabase.child("URL");
}
if (listener == null) {
listener = new ValueEventListener() {
#Override
public void onDataChange(DataSnapshot dataSnapshot) {
//process dataSnapshot
timesRead++;
if (timesRead == 2) {
ref.removeEventListener(listener);
}
}
#Override
public void onCancelled(DatabaseError databaseError) {
}
};
}
ref.removeEventListener(listener);
ref.addValueEventListener(listener);
}

Async method in Spring Boot

I have a problem with sending email with method annotated as #Async.
Firstly, I am not sure if it is possible to work as I want so I need help with explanation.
Here is what am doing now:
In main method i have annotation
#EnableAsync(proxyTargetClass = true)
Next I have AsyncConfig class
import org.springframework.context.annotation.Configuration;
import org.springframework.scheduling.annotation.AsyncConfigurerSupport;
import java.util.concurrent.Executor;
import org.springframework.scheduling.concurrent.ThreadPoolTaskExecutor;
#Configuration
public class AsyncConfig extends AsyncConfigurerSupport {
#Override
public Executor getAsyncExecutor() {
ThreadPoolTaskExecutor executor = new ThreadPoolTaskExecutor();
executor.setCorePoolSize(2);
executor.setMaxPoolSize(2);
executor.setQueueCapacity(500);
executor.setThreadNamePrefix("email-");
executor.initialize();
return executor;
}
}
Of course, its rest application so i have controller, service etc, looks normally, nothing special
My async method looks like this:
#Async
public void sendEmail() throws InterruptedException {
log.info("Sleep");
Thread.sleep(10000L);
//method code
log.info("Done");
}
I executing this method in another service method:
#Override
public boolean sendSystemEmail() {
try {
this.sendEmail();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
log.info("pending sendEmail method");
return true;
}
Now what I want archive is to ignore executing sendEmail() function and execute return true; meanwhile function sendEmail() will be executing in another Thread. Of course it doesn't work now as I want. Unfortunately.
Note that I am new into async programming, so I have lack of knowledge in some parts of this programming method.
Thanks for any help.
First – let’s go over the rules – #Async has two limitations:
it must be applied to public methods only
self-invocation – calling the async method from within the same class – won’t work
The reasons are simple – the method needs to be public so that it can be proxied. And self-invocation doesn’t work because it bypasses the proxy and calls the underlying method directly.
http://www.baeldung.com/spring-async

Proper Hub dependency lifetime management for SignalR and Castle Windsor

I have some SignalR hubs which may need to access some transient and singleton dependencies. Hooking the creation of the Hub is easy and works just fine however SignalR does its own Dispose() call on the created Hub rather than notifying the dependency resolver and letting it get involved in the disposal.
This isn't such a big deal if the dependencies are registered singletons, but if they're registered as transients then they'll never get disposed (if that was required) and Windsor will keep them alive until the Windsor container is collected (when the web server is shutting down anyway).
I see several possible ways of handling this...
a) Someone here points out a way to subclass SignalR's HubDispatcher class so that it can do proper disposal. It's not part of SignalR's standard DependencyResolver so this might be difficult / impossible
b) Some other class in SignalR, elsewhere in the pipeline, can be overridden or easily replaced so that we could subclass HubDispatcher and ensure that subclass is used. From what I can tell this would have to be the Owin middleware class HubDispatcherMiddleware. Is there some way to force Owin to not register this class and instead register my own version of this (which in turn uses my own HubDispatcher)?
c) There's some way of intercepting the Dispose() call made by SignalR on my Hub classes so that a call could be made back to Windsor to ensure any dependencies are properly disposed and released from the container
d) Studiously avoid using transient lifestyle dependencies and instead pass in typed factories so that we can resolve and release each dependency via the typed factory within the Hub
At the moment (d) is the only one I know how to do. (a) or (b) would be great. (c) is mostly covered by this post http://kozmic.net/2010/01/27/transparently-releasing-components-in-windsor/, however, the interceptor requires that Dispose() be called via IDisposable. SignalR's HubDispather class' implementation of hub disposal is
private static void DisposeHubs(IEnumerable<IHub> hubs)
{
foreach (var hub in hubs)
{
hub.Dispose();
}
}
No casting to IDisposable there... Also Dispose() on the Hub class is virtual and that blog post implies that a virtual Dispose() could add some complexity (I'm not quite sure how much and I don't know enough about Castle's interceptors and whether or not that missing cast to IDisposable can be worked around anyway).
I appreciate I've written this question for a fairly narrow audience - those who have used Windsor AND SignalR and care about more than just resolving dependencies. Every example I've found, including those on StackOverflow, seems to just ignore the release of dependencies.
Thanks!
I've had a bit similar problem but with Unity instead of Castle Windsor.
My requirements:
I wanted to avoid singleton registrations on the container.
All objects are resolved in Hub and should be disposed on Hub destruction.
Registrations reused across Web Api and SignalR.
Object lifetime is managed by HierarchicalLifetimeManager - child containers resolve and manage separate object instances. Registered like this:
container.RegisterType<IMessageService, MessageService>(new HierarchicalLifetimeManager());
This is my solution:
[HubName("exampleHub")]
public class ExampleHub : Hub
{
IUnityContainer _container;
public CarrierApiHub(IUnityContainer container) // container itself injected in hub
{
_container = container.CreateChildContainer(); // child container derived from the main container.
}
public async Task<int> UnreadMessagesCount()
{
// Here i'm resolving instance of IMessageService which depends on
// other registrations specified on the container. Full object graph
// is constructed and destroyed on hub disposal.
var messageSvc = _container.Resolve<IMessageService>();
return await messageSvc.CountUnreadOf(UserId);
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
_container.Dispose(); // child container destroyed. all resolved objects disposed.
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
private int UserId
{
get
{
// only an example
var claim = ((ClaimsPrincipal)Context.User).GetClaim("user_id");
return int.Parse(claim.Value);
}
}
}
SignalR and dependency resolver configuration:
public static class ConfigureSignalR
{
public static void Initialize(UnityContainer unityContainer, IAppBuilder app)
{
app.Map("/signalr", map =>
{
var resolver = new AppSignalRDependencyResolver(unityContainer);
map.UseCors(CorsOptions.AllowAll);
var hubConfiguration = new HubConfiguration
{
EnableJavaScriptProxies = false,
EnableJSONP = true, // Required for IE 9 (supports only polling)
Resolver = resolver
};
map.RunSignalR(hubConfiguration);
});
}
}
Dependency resolver implementation:
public class AppSignalRDependencyResolver : DefaultDependencyResolver
{
protected IUnityContainer _container;
public AppSignalRDependencyResolver(IUnityContainer container)
{
if (container == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("container");
}
this._container = container.CreateChildContainer();
}
public override object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
try
{
return _container.Resolve(serviceType);
}
catch (ResolutionFailedException)
{
return base.GetService(serviceType);
}
}
public override IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type serviceType)
{
try
{
return _container.ResolveAll(serviceType).Concat(base.GetServices(serviceType));
}
catch (ResolutionFailedException)
{
return base.GetServices(serviceType);
}
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
_container.Dispose();
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
}

RxJava (or Rx.NET) equivalent of ReactiveCocoa's RACObserve

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);
}
}