How can I pass a null constuctor argument using Castle Windsor? I thought the following would work
<parameters>
<repository>null</repository>
<message>null</message>
</parameters>`
If you want them to be null, it means that they are non-essential dependencies. By having them as ctor arguments you suggest otherwise. You should redesign your class to have another constructor that takes only essential dependencies, if you wish that they not change throughout the lifetime of an object (be readonly), or expose them as properties.
With Windsor you can't make it to pass nulls, for reasons mentioned in the other answer.
Wouldn't it better to simply have an additional public constructor that doesn't take these parameters, then you wouldn't need to register the parameters in the config?
This was discussed a while back on the mail list, and at the time I looked into the code. Null values are deliberately filtered out (mainly because the complicate type resolution).
I couldn't find a simple way to make a special case to add them.
Related
How do I read the bind parameters inside a MyBatis Interceptor? I'm trying to extract those information so I can write them to a log table.
The guide (http://www.mybatis.org/mybatis-3/configuration.html) didn't mention how to get them, and the JavaDoc (http://www.mybatis.org/mybatis-3/es/apidocs/org/apache/ibatis/mapping/BoundSql.html) does not have a single line of comment. I saw an example on SO about constructing a new BoundSql but that isn't what I needed.
I tried to test what contents are stored in BoundSql.getParameterMappings() and BoundSql.getParameterObject(), but it seems to be pretty complex. There's JavaType and JdbcType, and if there's only one parameter the ParameterObject isn't a Map object.
What is the proper way to get the bind parameters from BoundSql?
After going through MyBatis source code (where comment is an endangered species), I found out how MyBatis processes the bind parameters. However, that requires access to the JDBC Statement object, which is simply not available inside an Interceptor.
Then I did some testing and settled on this:
If there is only a single parameter, BindSql.getParameterObject() will give you the parameter itself. By using BindSql.getParameterMappings() and ParameterMapping.getJavaType() I can tell which Java class the parameter is.
If there are more than one parameter, BindSql.getParameterObject() will return an instance of org.apache.ibatis.binding.MapperMethod.ParamMap, which extends HashMap, or it will be an instance of the DTO you used. Using .getProperty() from ParameterMapping as key or as getter name, you can process the bind parameters one by one.
If anyone has a better way to do this, I'm all ears.
I am trying to get the hang of IoC and DI and am using Castle Windsor. I have an object I have created that can be multiply instantiated but over different generic types. For example
MyType<Generic, Generic2>
on Installation of MyType's assembly
container.Register(Component.For(typeof (IMyType<>)).ImplementedBy(typeof (MyType<>)));
Then in my main modules initialization I install MyTypes module with MyTypeInstaller which is a IWindsorInstaller.
Then I am manually resolving the various types of MyType that I want (this will actually be spread around different installers). But something like
container.Resolve<IMyType<type1, type2>();
That creates an actual instance of MyType registered for the generic types passed in.
This works fine, I get the instances of MyType<,> I need created.
Now, finally I have another module I have created that I will install last. I want to say,
container.ResolveAll<IMyType<,>>()
then create this instances of this new object for each object that exists.
However I cant seem to resolve all of the IMyTypes<,> without knowing the concrete types that each one were instantiated as.
At any rate, it is possible I am just doing this wrong and want feedback in general as well.
First, if MyType<T1,T2> can only be instantiated once for each combination of T1,T2 then you should be registering it is a Singleton.
Second, You cannot call strongly type container methods (like ResolveAll<T>) with an open generic - it MUST be a closed type.
Third, MyType is an open generic type and the number of closed generic classes is infinite (generic type constraints are not considered by the container). So, as far as the container is concerned you can call Resolve<ANYTHING, ANYTHINGELSE> and it will attempt to provide a MyType<ANYTHING,ANYTHINGELSE> for you. If ANYTHING and ANYTHINGELSE don't satisfy the type constraints then you will simply get a run time error.
Even if you could call ResolveAll<IMyType<,>>() what would you expect it to return given that you have registered an open generic implementation?
I understand that #GwtMock annotation creates a mock of a particular type when run with GwtMockitoTestRunner, but what if I had multiple items of a particular type in my widget? For example if I had many buttons, or many anchors in my widget, is there a way to create mocks for each one individually?
Right now I am thinking of bypassing this shortcoming in my test with something like
#GwtMock mockButtonn;
and then later on
when(mockButton.something()).thenReturn(value1,value2,value3,...)
so I can distinguish the buttons based on order of invocation. But this is definitely unmaintainable. Can someone suggest an alternative?
There are a few different ways to use the mocks generated by GwtMockito, take a look at the documentation at http://google.github.io/gwtmockito/ if you haven't already. It depends on how you're creating your widgets:
If you're creating widgets via UiBinder (fields annotated with #UiField), you don't have to do anything special - they will automatically be filled with mocks when you call createAndBindUi. You can then reference them directly in your tests, e.g. when(myClass.myLabel.getText()).thenReturn("some text"). This works because fields have to be package-private for UiBinder, so you can see them from your tests.
If you're passing widgets into your class via its constructor or some other way (dependency injection), then just declare fields in your test using the normal Mockito #Mock annotation. GwtMockito will invoke Mockito to fill these in automatically, but otherwise it's just the same as any other Mockito mock.
If you're creating widgets via GWT.create, this is where #GwtMock is valuable. The only difference between #GwtMock and #Mock is that #GwtMock also makes it so any calls to GWT.create will return the object annotated with #GwtMock. So it doesn't really make sense to annotate multiple fields of the same type with #GwtMock, since GWT.create can return only one of them.
If you're creating widgets directly via new, don't do that! It will be impossible to create fake version for testing, and you should use dependency injection instead.
1 and 2 are the most common cases by far - it's somewhat uncommon to actually have to use #GwtMock.
I have a use case where I need to create a class based on user input.
For example, the user input could be : "(Int,fieldname1) : (String,fieldname2) : .. etc"
Then a class has to be created as follows at runtime
Class Some
{
Int fieldname1
String fieldname2
..so..on..
}
Is this something that Scala supports? Any help is really appreciated.
Your scenario doesn't seem to make sense. It's not so much an issue of runtime instantiation (the JVM can certainly do this with reflection). Really, what you're asking is to dynamically generate a class, which is only useful if your code makes use of it later on. But how can your code make use of it later on if you don't know what it looks like? For example, how would your later code know which fields it could reference?
No, not really.
The idea of a class is to define a type that can be checked at compile time. You see, creating it at runtime would somewhat contradict that.
You might want to store the user input in a different way, e.g. a map.
What are you trying to achieve by creating a class at runtime?
I think this makes sense, as long as you are using your "data model" in a generic manner.
Will this approach work here? Depends.
If your data coming from a file that is read at runtime but available at compile time, then you're in luck and type-safety will be maintained. In fact, you will have two options.
Split your project into two:
In the first run, read the file and write the new source
programmatically (as Strings, or better, with Treehugger).
In the second run, compile your generated class with the rest of your project and use it normally.
If #1 is too "manual", then use Macro Annotations. The idea here is that the main sub-project's compile time follows the macro sub-project's runtime. Therefore, if we provide the main sub-project with an "empty" class, members can be added to it dynamically at compile time using data that the macro sees at runtime. - To get started, Modify the macro to read from a file in this example
Else, if you're data are truly only knowable at runtime, then #Rob Starling's suggestion may work for you as it did me. I'll share my attempt if you want to be a guinea pig. For debugging, I've got an App.scala in there that shows how to pass strings to a runtime class generator and access it at runtime with Java reflection, even define a Scala type alias with it. So the question is, will your new dynamic class serve as a type-parameter in Slick, or fail to, as it sometimes does with other libraries?
Let's say I have a number of GWT modules which are used as libraries, and one module with an entry point which inherits all of the library modules.
Each of the submodules needs to access a single instance of SomeClass.
If I call GWT.create(SomeClass.class) in modules A & B, do I get the same instance? If so, is this guaranteed?
No. GWT.create(SomeClass.class) compiles to new SomeClass(), unless there is a rebind rule of some kind - a replace-with or a generate-with rule will cause this to instead invoke the default constructor of whatever type is selected by those rules.
This means that GWT.create is not a suitable way to provide access to a singleton instance. Instead, consider some DI tool like Gin, or manual DI by always passing around the same instance. It is also possible to use the static keyword to keep a single instance where all code compiled into the same app can reference it.