I'd like to get a handle to the UVM factory so as to use function such as set_type_override_by_name().
The UVM factory uses the singleton design pattern to provide a handle. You get() a handle using the static get() method.
uvm_factory uvm_factory_h;
uvm_factory_h = uvm_factory::get();
uvm_factory_h.set_type_override_by_name("original_type_name","override_type_name");
etc.
You can directly use set_type_override_by_name method, without having uvm_factory handle.
For uvm_factory Handle -
Still, if you want to have uvm_factory class handle ,then you can use uvm_coreservice_t class to get uvm_factory handle.
The singleton instance of uvm_coreservice_t provides a common point
for all central uvm services such as uvm_factory, uvm_report_server
and so on.
The service class provides a static <::get> which returns
an instance adhering to uvm_coreservice_t. The rest of the
set_ get_ pairs provide access to the internal uvm
services
To get uvm_factory handle:
uvm_coreservice_t cs = uvm_coreservice_t::get();
uvm_factory factory = cs.get_factory();
factory.set_type_override_by_name(original_type_name,override_type_name, replace);
For more information, visit http://sourceforge.net/p/uvm/code/ci/UVM_1_2_RELEASE/tree/distrib/src/base/uvm_coreservice.svh
Related
I am refactoring my Flink Statefuns for embedded service deployment, but I cannot find the way to register statefun's ValueSpec in EmbeddedModule
When I was using remote http service deployment on k8s, I was building StatefulFunctionSpec with statefun's all value specs inside, and was registering it by StatefulFunctions.withStatefulFunction(spec):
Build static spec in MyStatefun:
static StatefulFunctionSpec SPEC = StatefulFunctionSpec.builder(MY_TYPE)
.withValueSpecs(MY_VALUE_SPEC)
.withSupplier(MyStatefun::new)
.build();
Register it in StatefulFunctions:
StatefulFunctions functions = new StatefulFunctions();
functions.withStatefulFunction(MyStatefun.SPEC);
And finally use functions.requestReplyHandler() as a handler in http server.
What's the way of doing that in EmbeddedModule?
In examples that I found so far, I only see that statefun is registered as this, but does this also register ValueSpecs?
binder.bindFunctionProvider(MyStatefun.FUNCTION_TYPE, x -> (StatefulFunction) new MyStatefun());
UPD. It seems that .bindFunctionProvider(...) cannot bind sdk.java.StatefulFunction, it can only bind sdk.StatefulFunction, which implements .invoke(sdk.Context, Object o) instead of .apply(sdk.java.Context, Message msg). And sdk.Context does not have .storage() method for accessing ValueSpecs.
UPD2. Found page about PersistedValue that could be used for state management and could possibly be the answer to my question: https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-statefun-docs-master/docs/sdk/flink-datastream/
I'm trying to mock an open-source class. That class uses a number of public variables instead of get methods. I need to have the mocked class return another mocked class when that variable is accessed, but I'm not sure how. Here's an example:
SolrQueryRequest request = createNiceMock(SolrQueryRequest.class);
...
replay(request);
ResponseBuilder builder = createNiceMock(ResponseBuilder.class);
expect(builder.req).andReturn(request); // Throws exception
replay(builder);
The above example, however, throws the exception java.lang.IllegalStateException: no last call on a mock available on the builder.req line. Any idea how I can do this? Please note I don't have the option of refactoring the mocked classes.
Well, after playing around with it more I discovered it was pretty easy:
myBuilder.req = request;
Now when my class under test accesses the myBuilder.req variable, it is correctly set to my mocked SolrQueryRequest.
I know the standard way of writing an AOP advice around a controller method and that you can get access to the HttpServletRequest arg, if declared in controller method.
But my scenario is that I have a translation service, that is currently session-scoped maintaining the user's locale for translation. I feel this makes the service stateful and also I do not want it to be session-scoped, as I think it is really Singleton. But there are multiple places where the translation service methods are called and so I do not want to change the signature to add request/locale in these methods. The problem is that all the callers of the translation service's methods do not have access to HttpServletRequest (not controller methods)? Can I write an aspect around the translation service methods and somehow magically get access to HttpServletRequest regardless of whether it is available in the caller's context or not?
#Service
public class TranslationService {
public void translate(String key) {
...
}
}
#Aspect
#Component
public class LocaleFinder {
#PointCut("execution(* TranslationService.translate(..))")
private void fetchLocale() {}
#Around("fetchLocale()") // in parameter list
public void advice(JoinPoint joinpoint, HttpServletRequest request) { .... }
}
If now, the caller of translate does not have HttpServletRequest, can't I get request in the advice? Is there a workaround?
Can I write an aspect around the translation service methods and
somehow magically get access to HttpServletRequest regardless of
whether it is available in the caller's context or not?
Not easily. Actually, it would require a lot of effort.
The easy way to do it is to rely on RequestContextHolder. In every request, the DispatcherServlet binds the current HttpServletRequest to a static ThreadLocal object in the RequestContextHolder. You can retrieve it when executing within the same Thread with
HttpServletRequest request = ((ServletRequestAttributes) RequestContextHolder.currentRequestAttributes()).getRequest();
You can do this in the advice() method and therefore don't need to declare a parameter.
You should be able to auto-wire a HttpServletRequest in your aspect. Spring provides a proxy to the current thread local request instance that way.
So just add:
#Autowired private HttpServletRequest request;
to your aspect. Better yet is to use constructor injection.
I found that the proxy generated with SlSvcUtil.exe (or by adding reference to Web References) only supports Event based async model which is absolutely inappropriate from design point of view (events were 2nd class citizens from the first days).
I'm going to implement F#'s async builder approach and I found "old style" Begin/End are much easier to be generalized. I notices SlSvcUtil.exe generates Begin/End methods pair but marks them both with private keyword?
A couple options on top of my head are:
expose Begin/End methods by updating the proxy class by hand
use wsdl.exe and create wrapper library for missing System.Web classes
use other communication protocols (HttpClient, Tcp)
use third-party proxies (failed to find any so far)
Any ideas?
Say someone created a remote service with one method:
public interface CompressService
{
public byte[] Compress(byte[] inData);
}
After SlSvcUtil I got:
public class CompressServiceSoapClient: ClientBase<CompressServiceSoap...
{
private BeginOperationDelegate onBeginCompressDelegate;
private EndOperationDelegate onEndCompressDelegate;
public event System.EventHandler<CompressCompletedEventArgs> CompressCompleted;
public void CompressAsync(byte[] inData, object userState);
}
While in fact I need:
public class CompressServiceSoapClient: ClientBase<CompressServiceSoap...
{
public IAsyncResult BeginCompress(byte[] inData, System.AsyncCallback callback, object asyncState);
public byte[] EndCompress(IAsyncResult result);
}
Answer
The solution is to declare contract interface with async methods and do not use generated code inherited from ClientBase<>. The article http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd744834(v=vs.95).aspx describes this in more details.
You can access the begin/end methods by using the channel factory for the end point.
Basically just create a new ChannelFactory and pass in a binding and end point. You can use the host source to dynamically update the end point so it's not hard-coded. The resulting instance will expose the begin/end methods for you.
I wrote an overload for my DomainService class. Problem is, when I recompile, it's not showing up as an overload for my DomainContext. What's wrong? Here is a code sample:
[EnableClientAccess]
public class FoodDomainService : LinqToEntitiesDomainService<FoodEntities>
{
public FoodDomainService(CultureInfo cultureInfo)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentCulture = cultureInfo;
}
}
And this doesn't work:
FoodDomainContext _foodContext = new FoodDomainContext(Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentCulture);
I get an error that there is no overload matching that. Am I not allowed to do this? Do I need an attribute of some kind?
You are not allowed to do this. When newing up the context from your Silverlight client, you are not directly intantiating your service. Instead, you instantiate a proxy class that was generated by RIA Services, and that proxy class will then call your service. This is why you don't see your constructor: because RIA did not generate it in your proxy.
Doing what you're trying to do would also implicate that there is a round-trip to the server at the time of newing up that FoodDomainContext class, which is not going to happen, because you need to complete the initialisation of that object before you can do so.
Anyway, instead of that you can create a method called SetCurrentCulture() and then call it after initializing the proxy.
This will not work because DomainContext is generated on client code of silverlight, click on view all folders or jump to definition and you will see that code generated will not contain your extra constructor.
Instead you will have to create a method in your domain service and pass information to server.
public SetCultreInfo(int lang,...)
{
.. set culture info
}
On your client, inside constructor you should call,
public MyDomainContext()
{
this.SetCulture(....);
}