I am having trouble using EnumSet on the client side.
I get this runtime error message:
java.util.EnumSet.EnumSetImpl is not default instantiable (it must
have a zero-argument constructor or no constructors at all) and has
no custom serializer.
Is this is a known issue?
Here is what I am doing (basically a hello world app)
Service:
String echo (EnumSet<Names> name) throws IllegalArgumentException;
Client:
echoServ.echo (EnumSet.of(Names.JOHN), new AsyncCallback<String>()
{ ....... });
Shared enum class
enum Names { JOHN, NUMAN, OBAMA }
This is a GWT limitation - See http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3028
The simplest workaround is to use a HashSet until that is fixed
It seems the problem is that EnumSet is not serializable according to GWT's rules:
It is assignable to IsSerializable or Serializable, either because it directly implements one of these interfaces or because it derives from a superclass that does
All non-final, non-transient instance fields are themselves serializable, and
As of GWT 1.5, it must have a default (zero argument) constructor (with any access modifier) or no constructor at all.
See the docs for more info.
Related
We are facing weird injection issues in Widfly due to CDI changes. We have interface
public interface Command<I, O> {
}
and many classes implement this interface like this
public class ApproveUserRequests implements Command<ApproveUserRequestsRequest, List<String>> {
}
Application listener classes likes to get list of all classes available and uses injection like this
#Inject
private Instance<Command<I, O>> mActions;
However instance returned by mActions were always null. After debugging source found that the only way to get list of all instances is to use
#Inject
private Instance<Command<?, ?>> mActions;
Also we faced injection issues while using generic types , however using wildcard type helped us.
- See more at: https://developer.jboss.org/thread/256783#sthash.1s6tuXsR.dpuf
The rules for parameterized types have been clarified in CDI 1.2. Have look at Section 5.2.4 Assignability of raw and parameterized types of the spec.
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 am very new to GWT.
I am using ext-gwt widgets.
I found many places in my office code containing like,
class A extends BaseModel{
private UserAccountDetailsDto userAccountDetailsDto = null;
//SETTER & GETTER IN BASEMODEL WAY
}
Also, the DTO reference is unused.
public class UserAccountDetailsDto implements Serializable{
private Long userId=null;
private String userName=null;
private String userAccount=null;
private String userPermissions=null;
//NORMAL SETTER & GETTER
}
Now, I am able to get the result from GWT Server side Code and things Work fine, but when I comment the DTO reference inside the class A, I am not getting any Result.
Please explain me the need of that.
Thanks
Well the problem is in implementation of GXT BaseModel and GWT-RPC serialization.
BaseModel is based around special GXT map, RpcMap. This map has defined special serialization rules, which let's avoid RPC type explosion, but as side effect, only some simple types stored in map will be serialized. E.g. you can put any type inside the map, but if you serialize/deserialize it, only values of type Integer, String ,Double,Byte, Float and Short (and arrays of this types) will be present. So the meaning behind putting reference to the DTO inside BaseModel, is to tell GWT-RPC that this type is also have to be serialized.
Detailed explanation
Basically GWT-RPC works like this:
When you define an interface for service, GWT-RPC analyzes all the classes used in parameters/ return type, to create serializers/deserializers. If you return something like Map<Object,Object> from your service, GWT-RPC will have to create a serializer for each class which implements Map and Serializable interfaces, but also it will generate serializers for each class which implements Serializable. In the end it is quite a bad situation, because the size of your compiled js file will be much biggger. This situation is called GWT-RPC type explosion.
So, in the BaseModel, all values are stored in RpcMap. And RpcMap has custom written serializer (RpcMap_CustomFieldSerializer you can see it's code if you interested how to create such things), so it doesn't cause the problem described above. But since it has custom serializer GWT dosn't know which custom class have been put inside RpcMap, and it doesn't generate serializers for them. So when you put some field into your BaseModel class, gwt knows that it might need to be able to serialize this class, so it will generate all the required stuff for this class.
Porting GXT2 Application code using BaseModel to GXT3 Model is uphill task. It would be more or less completely rewrite on model side with ModelProviders from GXT3 providing some flexibility. Any code that relies on Model's events, store, record etc are in for a rewrite.
I've try to expose to the client(gwt) an aspectJ method through gwt-rpc, but the gwt client can't find the method defined in an aspect. The class that i expose implements IsSerializable and only it's method are visible to the client interface...the method added by their aspect contrariwise no. How i can fix this? thanks in advice.
p.s. i post a little example for more clarity:
this is the class...
public class Example implements IsSerializable{
private String name;
public setName(String name){
this.name=name
}
}
and this is the aspect...
privileged aspect Example_x{
public int Example.getVersion() {
return this.version;
}
}
The Example.getVersion() method is unavailable on the client side.
TNX
This won't work, as GWT needs access to the source of any Java class that is exposed to the client side. This is necessary to compile them from Java to Javascript. If you modify your classes using AspectJ, the added methods will not be visible to the GWT compiler and therefore not to the client.
I'd say AspectJ is simply the wrong tool for this task. If you want to add some methods to existing classes you could write a (possibly generic) container class that contains an instance of Example as well as the version information from Example_x.
GWT.create() is the reflection equivalent in GWT,
But it take only class literals, not fully qualified String for the Class name.
How do i dynamically create classes with Strings using GWT.create()?
Its not possible according to many GWT forum posts but how is it being done in frameworks like Rocket-GWT (http://code.google.com/p/rocket-gwt/wiki/Ioc) and Gwittir (http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/wiki/Introspection)
It is possible, albeit tricky. Here are the gory details:
If you only think as GWT as a straight Java to JS, it would not work. However, if you consider Generators - Special classes with your GWT compiler Compiles and Executes during compilation, it is possible. Thus, you can generate java source while even compiling.
I had this need today - Our system deals with Dynamic resources off a Service, ending into a String and a need for a class. Here is the solutuion I've came up with - btw, it works under hosted, IE and Firefox.
Create a GWT Module declaring:
A source path
A Generator (which should be kept OUTSIDE the package of the GWT Module source path)
An interface replacement (it will inject the Generated class instead of the interface)
Inside that package, create a Marker interface (i call that Constructable). The Generator will lookup for that Marker
Create a base abstract class to hold that factory. I do this in order to ease on the generated source code
Declare that module inheriting on your Application.gwt.xml
Some notes:
Key to understanding is around the concept of generators;
In order to ease, the Abstract base class came in handy.
Also, understand that there is name mandling into the generated .js source and even the generated Java source
Remember the Generator outputs java files
GWT.create needs some reference to the .class file. Your generator output might do that, as long as it is referenced somehow from your application (check Application.gwt.xml inherits your module, which also replaces an interface with the generator your Application.gwt.xml declares)
Wrap the GWT.create call inside a factory method/singleton, and also under GWT.isClient()
It is a very good idea to also wrap your code-class-loading-calls around a GWT.runAsync, as it might need to trigger a module load. This is VERY important.
I hope to post the source code soon. Cross your fingers. :)
Brian,
The problem is GWT.create doen't know how to pick up the right implementation for your abstract class
I had the similar problem with the new GWT MVP coding style
( see GWT MVP documentation )
When I called:
ClientFactory clientFactory = GWT.create(ClientFactory.class);
I was getting the same error:
Deferred binding result type 'com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactory' should not be abstract
All I had to do was to go add the following lines to my MyWebapp.gwt.xml file:
<!-- Use ClientFactoryImpl by default -->
<replace-with class="com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactoryImpl">
<when-type-is class="com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactory"/>
</replace-with>
Then it works like a charm
I ran into this today and figured out a solution. The questioner is essentially wanting to write a method such as:
public <T extends MyInterface> T create(Class<T> clz) {
return (T)GWT.create(clz);
}
Here MyInterface is simply a marker interface to define the range of classes I want to be able to dynamically generate. If you try to code the above, you will get an error. The trick is to define an "instantiator" such as:
public interface Instantiator {
public <T extends MyInterface> T create(Class<T> clz);
}
Now define a GWT deferred binding generator that returns an instance of the above. In the generator, query the TypeOracle to get all types of MyInterface and generate implementations for them just as you would for any other type:
e.g:
public class InstantiatorGenerator extends Generator {
public String generate(...) {
TypeOracle typeOracle = context.getTypeOracle();
JClassType myTYpe= typeOracle.findType(MyInterface.class.getName());
JClassType[] types = typeOracle.getTypes();
List<JClassType> myInterfaceTypes = Collections.createArrayList();
// Collect all my interface types.
for (JClassType type : types) {
if (type.isInterface() != null && type.isAssignableTo(myType)
&& type.equals(myType) == false) {
myInterfaceTypes.add(type);
}
for (JClassType nestedType : type.getNestedTypes()) {
if (nestedType.isInterface() != null && nestedType.isAssignableTo(myType)
&& nestedType.equals(myTYpe) == false) {
myInterfaceTypes.add(nestedType);
}
}
}
for (JClassType jClassType : myInterfaceTypes) {
MyInterfaceGenerator generator = new MyInterfaceGenerator();
generator.generate(logger, context, jClassType.getQualifiedSourceName());
}
}
// Other instantiator generation code for if () else if () .. constructs as
// explained below.
}
The MyIntefaceGenerator class is just like any other deferred binding generator. Except you call it directly within the above generator instead of via GWT.create. Once the generation of all known sub-types of MyInterface is done (when generating sub-types of MyInterface in the generator, make sure to make the classname have a unique pattern, such as MyInterface.class.getName() + "_MySpecialImpl"), simply create the Instantiator by again iterating through all known subtypes of MyInterface and creating a bunch of
if (clz.getName().equals(MySpecialDerivativeOfMyInterface)) { return (T) new MySpecialDerivativeOfMyInterface_MySpecialImpl();}
style of code. Lastly throw an exception so you can return a value in all cases.
Now where you'd call GWT.create(clz); instead do the following:
private static final Instantiator instantiator = GWT.create(Instantiator.class);
...
return instantiator.create(clz);
Also note that in your GWT module xml, you'll only define a generator for Instantiator, not for MyInterface generators:
<generate-with class="package.rebind.InstantiatorGenerator">
<when-type-assignable class="package.impl.Instantiator" />
</generate-with>
Bingo!
What exactly is the question - i am guessing you wish to pass parameters in addition to the class literal to a generator.
As you probably already know the class literal passed to GWT.create() is mostly a selector so that GWT can pick and execute a generator which in the end spits out a class. The easist way to pass a parameter to the generator is to use annotations in an interface and pass the interface.class to GWT.create(). Note of course the interface/class must extend the class literal passed into GWT.create().
class Selector{
}
#Annotation("string parameter...")
class WithParameter extends Selector{}
Selector instance = GWT.create( WithParameter.class )
Everything is possible..although may be difficult or even useless. As Jan has mentioned you should use a generator to do that. Basically you can create your interface the generator code which takes that interface and compile at creation time and gives you back the instance. An example could be:
//A marker interface
public interface Instantiable {
}
//What you will put in GWT.create
public interface ReflectionService {
public Instantiable newInstance(String className);
}
//gwt.xml, basically when GWT.create finds reflectionservice, use reflection generator
<generate-with class="...ReflectionGenerator" >
<when-type-assignable class="...ReflectionService" />
</generate-with>
//In not a client package
public class ReflectionGenerator extends Generator{
...
}
//A class you may instantiate
public class foo implements Instantiable{
}
//And in this way
ReflectionService service = GWT.create(ReflectionService.class);
service.newInstance("foo");
All you need to know is how to do the generator. I may tell you that at the end what you do in the generator is to create Java code in this fashion:
if ("clase1".equals(className)) return new clase1();
else if ("clase2".equals(className)) return new clase2();
...
At the final I thought, common I can do that by hand in a kind of InstanceFactory...
Best Regards
I was able to do what I think you're trying to do which is load a class and bind it to an event dynamically; I used a Generator to dynamically link the class to the event. I don't recommend it but here's an example if it helps:
http://francisshanahan.com/index.php/2010/a-simple-gwt-generator-example/
Not having looked through the code of rocket/gwittir (which you ought to do if you want to find out how they did it, it is opensource after all), i can only guess that they employ deferred binding in such a way that during compile time, they work out all calls to reflection, and statically generate all the code required to implement those call. So during run-time, you cant do different ones.
What you're trying to do is not possible in GWT.
While GWT does a good job of emulating Java at compile time the runtime is of course completely different. Most reflection is unsupported and it is not possible to generate or dynamically load classes at runtime.
I had a brief look into code for Gwittir and I think they are doing their "reflection stuff" at compile time. Here: http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/source/browse/trunk/gwittir-core/src/main/java/com/totsp/gwittir/rebind/beans/IntrospectorGenerator.java
You might be able to avoid the whole issue by doing it on the server side. Say with a service
witch takes String and returns some sort of a serializable super type.
On the server side you can do
return (MySerializableType)Class.forName("className").newInstance();
Depending on your circumstances it might not be a big performance bottleneck.