So, I have a core expression. It has a with element that retrieves my variable (successfully). Say my variable is of type java.awt.Point; thus it has two public properties, x and y. Is there any way to test against these properties in a core expression?
If there was some way I could provide my own implementation of org.eclipse.core.expressions.Expression, that would work. Is that possible?
I think you can do this by creating a propertyTester that would react properly to your variable using your custom code.
Related
Final goal: create a custom editor that will let me select from a list of types and then enter additional parameters specific to that type.
To this end, I have created a pure data type, let's call it BasicData, with a SpecificData parameter of an abstract base type, let's call it ExtraData. The idea is to have the type information in BasicData (enum value), and then populate the SpecificData field in the custom editor code so that when I change selection a new object from a class derived from ExtraData. Then its values can be further edited by additional fields created for that specific type, as shown here.
I started doing the above, but I ran into problems trying to get the actual object being edited in order to set the SpecificData property. My classes are not Unity objects or scripts, and I'd rather not turn them into such just for this. I might be able to use reflection to do this but then changes in the editor won't take effect while it runs, from what I understand.
What is the best way to accomplish this?
I'd like to copy all properties from a NSManagedObject over to a "regular" Swift class. I don't want to do this manually, i.e. make a regular class with all the properties for every NSManagedObject and then manually copy all those values.
I do know how to read property names and values dynamically from my managed object, but how to set them on a Swift class in a way that I can then use those values like
mySwiftObject.name
which returns a String or
mySwiftObject.age
which returns a Number (as those are the types on the Managed Object). Custom subscripting and stuff like that came to my mind, but I didn't manage to achieve this... Is there a nice way to do exactly that?
Is it possible to write ObjectScript method, which will create new class in namespace and compile it? I mean programmatically create new class and store it. If so, can I edit this class using ObjectScript later(and recompile)?
Reason: I have class structure defined in string variable and I need to add new class to namespace according this string.
Nothing is impossible. Everything in Caché can be created programmatically. And, Classes is not a execution. There are at least two ways to do it:
simple SQL Query CREATE TABLE, will create a class.
and as you already mentioned ObjectScript Code, which can do this.
All of definition of any classes defined in other classes. Which you can find in package %Dictionary.
The class itself defined in %Dictionary.ClassDefinition. Which have some properties, for defining any parts of classes. So, this is a simple code which create some class, with one property.
set clsDef=##class(%Dictionary.ClassDefinition).%New()
set clsDef.Name="package.classname"
set clsDef.Super="%Persistent"
set propDef=##class(%Dictionary.PropertyDefinition).%New()
set propDef.Name="SomeProperty"
set propDef.Type="%String"
do clsDef.Properties.Insert(propDef)
do clsDef.%Save()
And in latest versions, there is one more way for create/change class. If you have text of class as you can see it in Studio. Then, you can load it in Caché, with class %Compiler.UDL.TextServices
Yes, it is. You likely want to make use of %Dictionary.ClassDefinition and the related %Dictionary.*Definition classes (especially %Dictionary.PropertyDefinition, %Dictionary.MethodDefinition and %Dictionary.IndexDefinition) to create and/or modify your class. Provided your string contains some reasonable representation of the data, you should be able to create the class this way.
The actual class documentation is available at http://docs.intersystems.com/cache20141/csp/documatic/%25CSP.Documatic.cls?CLASSNAME=%25Dictionary.ClassDefinition
You can then compile the class by calling $system.OBJ.Compile("YourPackage.YourClass","ck").
(Note: If your string contains the exported XML definition of the class, you could also write the XML representation to a stream and then call $system.OBJ.LoadStream() to import the XML definition. I would only recommend this if you have an exported class definition to start with.)
I have use the type dynamic, a new type in .NET 4.0.
I want to use a dynamic type because I want to use some types that in advance I don't know what type is, but I know that all this possible type has some common methods.
In my case, I am using self tracking entities in entity framework 4.0, and I know that all the entities has the methods markedXXX (to set the state of the entity).
Through the dynamic object that I created, I can access and set the properties of one of this entities, but when I try to execute the MarkedAsXXX method I get an exception that says that the object has not definied the method.
I would like to know how to access to this methods. Is it possible?
Because I have a function that can access to the original values and set this values to the current one, but I need to set the entity as Unchenged.
Thanks.
I want to use a dynamic type because I want to use some types that in advance I don't know what type is, but I know that all this possible type has some common methods.
That suggests you should create an interface with those common methods, and make all the relevant types implement the interface.
Through the dynamic object that I created, I can access and set the properties of one of this entities, but when I try to execute the MarkedAsXXX method I get an exception that says that the object has not defined the method.
It's possible that this is due to explicit interface implementation. If the types have those methods declared as public methods in the normal way, it should be fine.
If you really want to use dynamic typing with these types, is there some base interface which declares the MarkedAsXXX methods, which you could cast the objects to before calling those methods? (I'm not familiar with the entity framework, so I don't know the details of those methods.)
Basically, I would try to avoid dynamic typing unless you really need it, partly because of edge cases like this - but if explicit interface implementation is the cause, then casting to that interface should be fine.
If you define an interface to the dynamically generated classes you can call the methods without the hassle of reflection calling.
I have a little bit of a curve ball for you. Maybe just a design issue...maybe even something as simple as me not understanding Data annotation providers.
Anyway here we go:
I have a class which represents some model data. Let's say it represents a package/box/carton.
It actually represents all of these things so I use the class in several different views. Sometimes I want the attribute of the field Package_Description to be
So that it shows up as Box Number : input box here.
Now if i want it to appear as "Carton Name" my only option would be to sub type it. Or use a separate class to have the annotations for this class. My quandary is that some of the field names are user configurable and therefore I cannot have a static definition!
(By the way i am using third party librarys [Telerik MVC Grid] do display these field names so i cannot change the fact that it's looking at data annotation )
So I just need to know is there a way to add attributes dynamically?
Create an anonymous type on the fly, sub class the original and then add attributes using reflection?
Or what other options are open to me, do I need to somehow implement a different annotation provider?
Attributes are part of the definition of the type. Because of that, you can't modify attributes of existing classes during runtime.
You could create a new type during runtime (not an anonymous type), but I think that's not such a good idea. I'm sure whatever component you're using, it allows you to specify the appearance explicitly.