Looks like the class that is generated for PlaceHistoryMapper is hard-coded to use AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper as the super class.
So, I am trying to work around this by trying to replace this AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper with a custom mapper of mine using deferred binding . I am using the following rule in my *.gwt.xml:
<replace-with class="com.google.gwt.place.impl.AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper">
<when-type-is class="com.test.sampleapp.CustomPlaceHistoryMapper" />
</replace-with>
But for some reason the replace does not seem to be happening. CustomPlaceHistoryMapper is not getting kicked in and the generated class still uses AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper.
Any thoughts/pointers as to what might be resulting this behavior are much appreciated.
Note: I have also posted this on the GWT group but haven't received an answer so far.
To make the deferred binding work a class must be created with GWT.create(). However, AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper is only used as an extended class. So it will never be created via GWT.create, but always by instantiation the subclass. And therefor deferred binding won't work in this case. If you want a complete different implementation you have to implement a custom PlaceHistoryMapper, and manage the known tokens yourself. This also means you can't use the History annotations either.
As a side note the classnames in your rule should be swapped. But for the end result this doesn't matter, since it won't work in the first place.
It is absolutely possible to have custom history tokens (eg. #mail or #mail/bla instead of only #mail:inbox) using the out-of-the-box Place-related classes that GWT (2.0) provides.
Instead of replacing AbstractPlaceHistoryMapper you could instantiate the default PlaceHistoryMapper passing in it's constructor your implementation of PlaceHistoryMapper<T> or PlaceHistoryMapperWithFactory<T>.
eg.:
final PlaceHistoryHandler placeHistoryHandler = new PlaceHistoryHandler(new CustomHistoryMapper());
You will be able then to map tokens as you wish.
I personally recommend you to use an unique PlaceTokenizer in you mapper custom implementation so that I dont have to have an inner PlaceTokenizer class in each of your Places.
Hope that helps. Feel free to ask any doubts.
Related
I'm looking for a way of condensing some of my AS3 code to avoid almost duplicate commands.
The issue is that I have multiple variables with almost the same name e.g. frenchLanguage, englishLanguage, germanLanguage, spanishLanguage
My Controller class contains public static variables (these are accessed across multiple classes) and I need a way to be able to call a few of these variables dynamically. If the variables are in the class you are calling them from you can do this to access them dynamically:
this["spanish"+"Language"]
In AS3 it's not possible to write something like:
Controller.this["spanish"+"Language"]
Is there any way to achieve this? Although everything is working I want to be able to keep my code as minimal as possible.
It is possible to access public static properties of a class this way (assuming the class name is Controller as in your example:
Controller['propertyName']
I'm not sure how this helps to have "minimal code", but this would be a different topic/question, which might need some more details on what you want to achive.
Having said that, I like the approach DodgerThud suggests in the comments of grouping similar values in a (dynamic) Object or Dictonary and give it a proper name.
Keep in mind, that if the string you pass in as the key to the class or dynamic object is created from (textual) user input you should have some checks for the validity of that data, otherwise your programm might crash or expose other fields to the user.
It would make sense to utilize a Dictionary object for a set of variables inherited: it provides a solid logic and it happens to work...
I do not think this is what you are trying to accomplish. I may be wrong.
Classes in AS3 are always wrapped within a package - this is true whether you have compiled from Flash, Flex, Air, or any other...
Don't let Adobe confuse you. This was only done in AS3 to use Java-Based conventions. Regardless, a loosely typed language is often misunderstood, unfortunately. So:
this["SuperObject"]["SubObject"]["ObjectsMethod"][ObjectsMethodsVariable"](args..);
... is technically reliable because the compiler avoids dot notation but at runtime it will collect a lot of unnecessary data to maintain those types of calls.
If efficiency becomes an issue..
Use:
package packages {
import flash.*.*:
class This implements ISpecialInterface {
// Data Objects and Function Model
// for This Class
}
package packages {
import...
class ISpecialInterface extends IEventDispatcher
Is there any way to create a fake from a System.Type object in FakeItEasy? Similar to:
var instance = A.Fake(type);
I try to write a fake container for AutoFac that automatically return fakes for all resolved types. I have looked in the code for FakeItEasy and all methods that support this is behind internal classes but I have found the interface IFakeObjectContainer that looks pretty interesting, but the implementations still need registration of objects that is the thing that I want to come around.
As of FakeItEasy 2.1.0 (but do consider upgrading to the latest release for more features and better bugfixes), you can create a fake from a Type like so:
using FakeItEasy.Sdk;
…
object fake = Create.Fake(type);
If you must use an earlier release, you could use some reflection based approach to create a method info for the A.Fake() method. (since it's about auto mocking this shouldn't be a problem really).
This is best done using a registration handler. You should look into how AutofacContrib.Moq implements its MoqRegistrationHandler. You'll see that it is actually using the generic method MockRepository.Create to make fake instances. Creating a similar handler for FakeItEasy should be quite simple.
Hi I am new to AspectJ and I would like to find out if creating variants of a class using Aspects - I will create another instance of the class as well?
I am guessing that the question is, if I am adding aspects would a new class be created.
The answer is no, as the weaving, either when compiling or at run-time, using AspectJ, will add the changes to the classes that are affected by the aspects, so there is no new class created, it is just that the byte code for the original class and the final class are different.
What do you mean by variants?
If you are asking if AspectJ instantiates copies of your class, the answer is no.
AspectJ uses a design pattern called proxy to intercept calls to your class.
I use contructor injection in my solution, but this one class has a property that i do not want to pass in the constructor where i have the invariant dependencies.
Let's say i got an ILogger and it has a FileName property i want to set, while still having it set the dependancies in the contructor.
How do i go about registering the type, and at the same time pass the defaunt connection string.
I hope there is an easy way to do it - preferably without decorating the property with an attribute, but if the setup is easier with the attribute i guess that's cool :)
So the question is, how do i inject a property value on an object that also uses contructor injection - with Unity.
UPDATE: I mentioned it in the title, but i forgot to elaborate in the body of the text - i want to set these dependencies up manually (in code) as opposed to in a config file.
Ok i guess it helped to ask the question, i found out - here it is.
container.Configure<InjectedMembers>().ConfigureInjectionFor<BasicLogger>(
new InjectionProperty("FileName", #"C:\test.log")
);
If you are injecting properties you have to use [Dependency] or else manually inject that dependency.
You usually want an IConfiguration interface to be injected. This would probably have a LogFile property that you can read.
The Configuration implimentation is usually just a simple wrapper to read items from the config file.
When Instantiating a class, Windsor by default treats all public properties of the class as optional dependencies and tries to satisfy them. In my case, this creates a rather complicated circular dependency which causes my application to hang.
How can I explicitly tell Castle Windsor that it should not be trying to satisfy a public property? I assume there must be an attribute to that extent. I can't find it however so please let me know the appropriate namespace/assembly.
If there is any way to do this without attributes (such as Xml Configuration or configuration via code) that would be preferable since the specific library where this is happening has to date not needed a dependency on castle.
You can use the Castle.Core.DoNotWireAttribute attribute to stop a property from being wired up by the IoC container (this is in the Castle.Core assembly, which means your library only needs to take a dependency on the lightweight Castle.Core assembly - if for example you want to use the code without an inversion of control container altogether, or in a different IoC container).
I don't believe there's any way to prevent wiring from occurring in the Xml configuration, but it would be reasonably easy to add support for this - if I had to do this I would probably:
Introduce some kind of attribute on the property declaration in the xml: <myprop wire="false" />
Inherit from PropertiesDependenciesModelInspector, overriding the InspectProperties method to apply some additional logic to identifying which properties should be added as dependencies to the components model (inspecting the model.Configuration for the wire="false" attribute/value pair).
Inherit from DefaultComponentModelBuilder and override the InitializeContributors to include your replacement PropertiesDependenciesModelInspector - or just remove the existing properties contributor and add your own at run time via the AddContributor/RemoveContributor methods.
Replace the ComponentModelBuilder service instance assigned to the kernel of your container.
Another approach which could work for you is to just manually remove the dependencies from the model before any instances of the service are requested ie.
kernel.GetHandler(typeof(MyComponent)).ComponentModel.Dependencies.RemoveAll(d => d.DependencyKey == "PropertyThatShouldNotBeWired");
YMMV with that approach though - especially if you have startable services or other facilities which may be eagerly instantiating your component after it's registered.
I created a facility to help with this:
Castle.Facilities.OptionalPropertyInjection
I do not know which version of Castle you guys were using at that time, but none of the solution mentioned were working. Plus, there is a lot of dead links.
With castle 3.1, here the solution I came up with (thanks to some castle source code digging):
container.Register(Component.For(type)
.LifestyleTransient()
.Properties( propertyInfo => propertyInfo.PropertyType != typeof(MyOtherType)));
The 'Properties' function adds a property filter used by castle when constructing the ComponentModel. In my case, all properties dependency will be satisfied except the property type 'MyOtherType'.
Maybe it will be helpful for someone. In Windsor 4.1 there is PropertiesIgnore method during registration.
Component.For<Role>().LifestyleTransient().PropertiesIgnore((model, propertyInfo) => true)
DoNotWireAttribute
Class: http://svn.castleproject.org:8080/svn/castle/trunk/Core/Castle.Core/Attributes/DoNotWireAttribute.cs
Test: http://svn.castleproject.org:8080/svn/castle/trunk/InversionOfControl/Castle.Windsor.Tests/IgnoreWireTestCase.cs
This can be achieved by the following code:
var container = new WindsorContainer();
// We don't want to inject properties, only ctors
var propInjector = container.Kernel.ComponentModelBuilder
.Contributors
.OfType<PropertiesDependenciesModelInspector>()
.Single();
container.Kernel.ComponentModelBuilder.RemoveContributor(propInjector);
Source Castle Windsor Documentation
Posted this on the google groups forum too here: http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/43aa513817bd057a