I was wondering how Mybatis get the private variable in Java.
For example:
Let's say we have a Java class called Foo:
public class Foo{
private int foolID;
public Foo(int foolID){
this.foolID = foolID;
}
}
And let's create XML mapper for insert.
<insert id="insert" parameterType="Foo">
insert into foo_table (id)
values (#{foolID});
</insert>
Let's say there are FooDAO java class and FooMapper java interface for this insert.
My question is how come foolID is readable even without Getter (Even if there is a getter method for foolID, I never specify what the getter is...). It seems like magic to me, and I know there is no magic for programming... :)
The only way I can think of is reflection.
Thanks for your help in advance.
That's correct, reflection is used to access private fields, but only if accessing private fields is not restricted.
Seams like reflection is used heavily not just to access private fields but to invoke setters getters etc.
Related
I found the following use of a wrapper class, and was wondering if it is a good practice or whether its just duplication of code for no reason.
//Class:
public class SomeClass{
public Integer someInt;
public String someString;
}
//Callout Class:
public class CalloutClass{
public SomeClass someMethod(){
//...code to do a callout to an api
SomeClass someClassObj = (SomeClass)JSON.Deserialize(APIResponse.getBody(), SomeClass.class);
return someClassObj;
}
}
//Controller:
public class SomeController {
public SomeController(){
someClassObj = calloutClassObj.someMethod();
SomeWrapper wrapperObj = new SomeWrapper();
for(SomeClass iterObj : someClassObj){
wrapperObj.someWrapperInt = iterObj.someInt;
wrapperObj.someWrapperString = iterObj.someString;
}
}
public class someWrapper{
public Integer someWrapperInt{get;set;}
public String someWrapperString{get;set;}
}
}
The wrapper class "someWrapper" could be eliminated if we just use getters and setters ({get;set;}) in "SomeClass."
Could anyone explain if there could be a reason for following this procedure?
Thanks,
James
My assumption (because, code in controller is extra pseudo) is
SomeClass is a business entity, purpose of which is to store/work with business data. By work I mean using it's values to display it (using wrapper in controller), to calculate smth in other entities or build reports... Such kind of object should be as lightweight as possible. You usually iterate through them. You don't need any methods in such kind of objects. Exception is constructor with parameter(s). You might want to have SomeObject__c as parameter or someWrapper.
someWrapper is a entity to display business entity. As for wrapper classes in controllers. Imagine, that when you display entity on edit page and enter a value for someWrapperInt property, you want to update someWrapperString property (or you can just put validation there, for example, checking if it is really Integer). Usually, as for business entity, you don't want such kind of functionality. But when user create or edit it, you may want smth like this.
I'm seeing, more and more code like the code below in an MVVM application (WPF and Prism). Controllers have the following code fragments:
public class DispenseOptionController : IDispenseOptionController
{
protected readonly Func<IPharmacyCdmServiceSimpleClient> CdmClient;
protected readonly Func<IPatientServiceSimpleClient> PatientClient;
public DispenseOptionController(Func<IPharmacyCdmServiceSimpleClient> cdmClient, Func<IPatientServiceSimpleClient> patientClient)
{
CdmClient = cdmClient;
PatientClient = patientClient;
}...
I'm trying to understand the role that Func<> plays here. It seems that this delegate is used as parameters to the constructor. Can someone explain to me why anyone would use Func<> in this particular case? And can Func<> be replaced with anything else?
A Func<> is nothing but the Encapsulation of a method that one or more parameter and returns a value of the type specified by the TResult parameter.
You could see some use cases here
I have a domain model written in PHP, and some of my classes (entities inside an aggregate) have public methods, which should never be called from outside the aggregate.
PHP does not have the package visibility concept, so I'm wondering if there is some kind of standardized way to define #package and #visibility package in the docblocks, and to have a static analysis tool that would report violations of the visibility scope.
I'm currently trying out PHPStorm, which I've found very good so far, so I'm wondering if this software has support for this feature; if not, do you know any static code analysis tool that would?
The closest parallel to this line of thinking that I see in PHP's capability is using "protected" scope rather than public for these kinds of methods. Granted, that requires using inheritance to grant access to the protected items. In my years of managing phpDocumentor, I've never encountered anything else that attempts to mimic that kind of "package scope" that I remember from my Java days.
If the entities within your aggregate root should not be modifiable without going through the aggregate root, then the only means you have to control that is making the entity a private or protected member so that all modifications to the entity have to go through the aggregate.
class RootEntity {
private $_otherEntity;
public function DoSomething() {
$this->_otherEntity->DoSomething();
}
public function setOtherEntity( OtherEntity $entity ) {
$this->_otherEntity = $entity;
}
}
Someone can still always do:
$otherEntity = new OtherEntity();
$otherEntity->DoSomethingElse();
$rootEntity->setOtherEntity($otherEntity);
Though, I guess you could use the magic __call() method to prohibit setting of the _otherEntity anywhere except during construction. This falls under total hack category :)
class RootEntity {
private $_otherEntity;
private $_isLoaded = false;
public function __call( $method, $args ) {
$factoryMethod = 'FactoryOnly_'.$method;
if( !$this->_isLoaded && method_exists($this,$factoryMethod) {
call_user_func_array(array($this,$factoryMethod),$args
}
}
public function IsLoaded() {
$this->_isLoaded = true;
}
protected function FactoryOnly_setOtherEntity( OtherEntity $otherEntity ) {
$this->_otherEntity = $otherEntity;
}
}
So, from there, when you build the object, you can call $agg->setOtherEntity($otherEntity) from your factory or repository. Then when you are done building the object, call IsLoaded(). From there, nobody else will be able to introduce a new OtherEntity into the class and will have to use the publicly available methods on your aggregate.
I'm not sure if you can call that a "good" answer, but it's the only thing I could think of to truly limit access to an entity within an aggregate.
[EDIT]: Also, forgot to mention...the closest for documentation is that there is an #internal for phpdoc:
http://www.phpdoc.org/docs/latest/for-users/tags/internal.html
I doubt that it will modify the IDE's code completion, however. Though, you could probably make a public function/property but label it as "#access private" with phpdoc to keep it from being in code completion.
So far, PHPStorm does not seem to provide this feature.
I'm pretty new to JPA/JDO and the whole objectdb world.
I have an entity with a set of strings, looks a bit like:
#Entity
public class Foo{
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Key id;
private Set<String> bars;
public void setBars(Set<String> newBars){
if(this.bars == null)
this.bars = new HashSet<String>;
this.bars = newBars;
}
public Set<String> getBars(){
return this.bars;
}
public void addBar(String bar){
if(this.bars == null)
this.bars = new HashSet<String>;
this.bars.add(bar);
}
}
Now, in another part of the code, I'm trying to do something like this:
EntityManager em = EMF.get().createEntityManager();
Foo myFoo = em.find(Foo.class, fooKey);
em.getTransaction().begin();
myFoo.addBar(newBar);
em.merge(myFoo);
em.getTransaction().commit();
When, of course, newBar is a String.
But, what I get is:
javax.jdo.JDODetachedFieldAccessException: You have just attempted to access field "bars" yet this field was not detached when you detached the object. Either dont access this field, or detach it when detaching the object.
I've searched for an answer, but I couldn't find one.
I've seen someone ask about a Set of strings, and he was told to add an #ElementCollection notation.
I tried that, but I got an error about the String class Metadata (I don't really understand what it means.)
I would really appreciate some help on this thing, even a good reference to someone explaining this (in simple English).
OK,
So I found the answer in some blog.
So for anyone who's interested:
In order to use a Collection of simple data types (in JPA), a
#Basic
notation should be added to the collection. So from my example at the top, It should've been written:
#Basic
private Set<String> bars;
So you are using JPA, right? (I see EntityManager rather than JDO's PersistenceManager.) Since you are getting a JDO error, I suspect that your app isn't configured properly for JPA.
JPA docs: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/jpa/overview.html
JDO docs: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/jdo/overview.html
You need to pick one datastore wrapper and stick with it. The default new app with the Eclipse tools is configured for JDO, and it is a reasonable choice, but you'll have to change your annotations around a little bit.
In php we can call static member functions using class objects. For example
class Human
{
public static function Speak()
{
echo "I am a human.";
}
}
$human = new Human();
$human->Speak();
What we would expect is that a static member function can only be called using the class name and not the class instance variable (object). But what i have seen while programming is that php allows calling a static member function using the class object also. Is there any practical use or some important reason that this feature has been provided in php ?
This feature exists in java and c++ also. Thanks Oli for pointing this out in your response.
This is the same as in other OO languages, such as C++ and Java. Why would you want the interpreter to prevent this?
UPDATE
My best guess for this (and this is only a guess) is "for convenience". In essence, why should the user of your class necessarily care whether a given member function is static or not? In some circumstances, this will certainly matter; in others, maybe not. I'm not saying this is a great justification, but it's all I can come up with!
it allows you to abstract from the particular definition of the method, so that for example if you had to turn it into a static one at some point, you don't have to rewrite all the method calls!
I can't answer for PHP, (or really for anything) but consider this hypothetical C++:
class base{
public:
static void speak(){cout<<"base\n";}
};
class sub :public base {
public:
static void speak(){cout<<"sub\n"; }
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]){
base *base1 = new base();
base1->speak();
sub *sub1 = new sub();
sub1->speak();
base *sub2 = new sub();
sub2->speak();
((sub*)sub2)->speak();
}
The output would be:
base
sub
base
sub
I'm sure it could be useful... maybe helping you determine which class's static method you should call based on the object currently in hand.