Hello I have a list of objects that in turn includes a list. I would like to iterate over these in a table. Something like this.
<af:table value="#{backingBeanScope.evaluateBackingBean.subjects}"
var="subject">
<af:forEach var="course" items="${subject.courses}">
<af:column sortable="false"
headerText="#{evaluategyansokanviewcontrollerBundle.SUBJECT}"
id="colSubject" width="200">
<af:outputText value="#{subject.name}"id="ot2"/>
</af:column>
<af:column sortable="false"
headerText="#{evaluategyansokanviewcontrollerBundle.COURSE}"
id="colCourse">
<af:outputText value="#{course.name}"id="ot3"/>
</af:column>
...
I know this code doesn't work but its just to give an idea of what I want.
Regards
Johannes
To me the easiest thing to do would be to actually flatten this out in Java before you get to rendering in JSF. Then you would just need "normal" syntax in your table. So maybe an ArrayList of courses by subject:
List<CourseBySubject> coursesBySubject;
public List<CourseBySubject> getCoursesBySubject() {
if (coursesBySubject == null) {
coursesBySubject = new ArrayList<Object>();
Iterator<Subject> subjectIterator = subjects.iterator();
while (subjectIterator.hasNext()) {
Subject subject = subjectIterator.next();
courses = subject.getCourses();
Iterator<Course> courseIterator = courses.iterator();
while (subjectIterator.hasNext()) {
Course course = courseIterator.next();
coursesBySubject.add(new CourseBySubject(subject.name, course.name));
}
}
}
return coursesBySubject;
}
If you're looking for two layers of data - meaning a data with data or a collection with a subset of collections, then the af:table would not really be the ideal component to use.
Depending on what you want to achieve, you might wana consider some of these questions first:
Is row selection important for you?
Is this more of a UI layout (read-only) vs a Data layout
If you're going more for a UI layout, then adf has two components that will go well with what you need:
af:iterator
af:foreach
Both are quite similar except that af:foreach only supports List types while iterator will provide flexibility when using with bindings.data.collectionModel for example.
One thing that is also worth mentioning is that af:foreach allows you to have component bindings while the af:iterator will represent nodes which means that the layout it generates will be only seen as one object in the server side.
I'll assume that you are looking for table based data with two levels and that rowselection is important for you. In that case, the af:treetable is your best bet since you get additional features such as collapse/uncollapse of parent rows.
If you're not using the bindings collectionModel (dataControl model) - which some might seem questionable - then make sure that you POJO collection provides accessors (setters) to the subset collection.
Eg.
public abstract class Foo {
public abstract List<Country> getCountries();
public static abstract class Country {
public abstract List<City> getCities();
}
public static abstract class City {
}
}
Just in case you are wondering why you can't use the af:table is mainly because the af:treeTable allows you selection of both parent and child and in fact, your bean can even distinguish the difference if the selection was against the parent vs the child.
With that said, you can also choose to use af:table and miss-out some af:treeTable features and probably rely on some custom attributes to distinguish what you are selecting.
You can use an af:table within an af:table > af:column. Supported upto ADF 11.1.1.6 though.
Related
I'm trying to use the Stanford OWL API, and I find the documentation a bit unclear. Using Java, I load an ontology which has been prepared by some user via Protégé, and get to a DefaultOWLObjectProperty. The value of that property is meant to be an individual in some class in the ontology. How can I find the class? Code snippet below:
OWLNamedClass cls = (OWLNamedClass) it.next();
Collection instances = cls.getInstances(false);
for (Iterator jt = instances.iterator(); jt.hasNext();) {
OWLIndividual individual = (OWLIndividual) jt.next();
Collection props = individual.getRDFProperties();
for (Object prop : props) {
DefaultOWLObjectProperty obj = (DefaultOWLObjectProperty) prop;
Object val = individual.getPropertyValue(obj);
DefaultRDFIndividual valInd = (DefaultRDFIndividual) val;
…
}
I'd like to get the class of valInd.
There are two methods in OWLIndividual that will make this easier for you. Let's assume you've got your OWLOntology as ontology. Then, using getObjectPropertyValues(OWLOntology), you can get a map that maps a property expression to the set of individuals that are related to individual by that property. You can iterate over the entries of that map, and then iterate over the set of individuals. Then, for each of those individuals, you can use getTypes(OWLOntology) to get the set of OWLClassExpressions that are its types. (You get a set of these rather than a single type, because OWL individuals can, and usually do, have more than one type.)
If you're just interested in the values of certain properties, then you can use the more specialized getObjectPropertyValues(OWLObjectPropertyExpression,OWLOntology) to get just the values of a specific property for an individual.
In general, I'd suggest at least skimming over all the methods that the OWLIndividual interface provides, just to have a general awareness of what you can do with it. You don't need to memorize all the details, but when you are approaching a problem, you'll have at least a vague thought that "I think the interface has something like that…" and you'll know where to look. This is good practice with any API or tool, not just the OWL API.
I have an application which has a data tree as a databackend. To implement the the MVVM pattern I have a logic layer of classes which encapsulate the data tree. Therefore the logic also is arranged in a tree. If the input is in a valid state the data should be copied to a second thread which works as a double buffer of the last valid state. Therefore one way would be cloning.
Another approach would be to implement the complete data backend to be immutable. This would imply to rebuild the whole data tree if something new is entered. My question is, is there a practical way to do this? I'm stuck at the point where I have to reassign the data tree efficently to the logic layer.
**UPDATE - Some Code
What we are doing is to abstract hardware devices which we use to run our experiments. Therefore we defined classes like "chassis, sequence, card, channel, step". Those build a tree structure like this:
Chassis
/ \
Sequence1 Sequence2
/ | \
Card1 Card2 Card3
/ \
Channel1 Channel2
/ \
Step1 Step2
In code it looks like this:
public class Chassis{
readonly var List<Sequence> Sequences = new List<Sequence>();
}
public class Sequence{
readonly var List<Card> Cards = new List<Card>();
}
and so on. Of course each class has some more properties but those are easy to handle. My Problem now is that List is a mutable object. I can call List.Add() and it changed. Ok there is a ReadOnlyList but I'm not sure if it implements the immutability the right way. Right as in copy by value not reference and not just blocking to write to it by blocking the set methods.
The next problem is that the amount of sequences and step can vary. For this reason I need an atomic exchange of list elements.
At the moment I don't have any more code as I'm still thinking if this way would help me and if it is possible at all to implement it in a reasonable amount of time.
Note that there are new immutable collections for .NET that could help you achieve your goal.
Be very cautious about Dave Turvey's statement (I would downvote/comment if I could):
If you are looking to implement an immutable list you could try storing the list as a private member but exposing a public IEnumerable<>
This is incorrect. The private member could still be changed by its container class. The public member could be cast to List<T>, IList<T>, or ICollection<T> without throwing an exception. Thus anything that depends on the immutability of the public IEnumerable<T> could break.
I'm not sure if I understand 100% what you're asking. It sounds like you have a tree of objects in a particular state and you want to perform some processing on a copy of that without modifying the original object state. You should look into cloning via a "Deep Copy". This question should get you started.
If you are looking to implement an immutable list you could try storing the list as a private member but exposing a public IEnumerable<>
public class Chassis
{
List<Sequence> _sequences = new List<Sequence>();
public IEnumerable<Sequence> Sequences { get { return _sequences; } }
}
18/04/13 Update in response to Brandon Bonds comments
The library linked in Brandon Bonds answer is certainly interesting and offers advantages over IEnumerable<>. In many cases it is probably a better solution. However, there are a couple of caveats that you should be aware of if you use this library.
As of 18/04/2013 This is a beta library. It is obviously still in development and may not be ready for production use. For example, The code sample for list creation in the linked article doesn't work in the current nuget package.
This is a .net 4.5 library. so it will not be suitable for programs targeting an older framework.
It does not guarantee immutability of objects contained in the collections only of the collection itself. It is possible to modify objects in an immutable list You will still need to consider a deep copy for copying collections.
This is addressed in the FAQ at the end of the article
Q: Can I only store immutable data in these immutable collections?
A: You can store all types of data in these collections. The only immutable aspect is the collections themselves, not the items they contain.
In addition the following code sample illustrates this point (using version 1.0.8-beta)
class Data
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var test = ImmutableList.Create<Data>();
test = test.Add(new Data { Value = 1 });
Console.WriteLine(test[0].Value);
test[0].Value = 2;
Console.WriteLine(test[0].Value);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
This code will allow modification of the Data object and output
1
2
Here are a couple of articles for further reading on this topic
Read only, frozen, and immutable collections
Immutability in C# Part One: Kinds of Immutability
I have problem with concept and implementation of encapsulation.
Can someone explain it to me?
Encapsulation is a moderately easy concept once you realise it (probably) comes from the same base word as capsule.
It's simply a containment of information.
Encapsulation means that a class publishes only what is needed for others to use it, and no more. This is called information hiding and it means classes can totally change their internals without having an effect on any of their users.
In other words, a dictionary class can begin life as a simple array and progress to a binary tree of words then even maybe to some database access functions, all without changing the interface to it.
In an object oriented world, objects hold both their data and the methods used to manipulate data and that is the pinnacle of encapsulation. One way this is done is to make sure each object knows which functions to call to manipulate its data, and ensure the correct ones are called.
As an example, here's a class for maintaining integer lists in my mythical, but strangely Python-like and therefore hopefully easy to understand, language:
class intlist:
private int val[10] # Slots for storing numbers.
private bool used[10] # Whether slot is used or not.
public constructor:
# Mark all slots unused.
for i in 0..9:
used[i] = false
public function add(int v) throws out-of-memory:
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If unused, store value, mark used, return.
if not used[i]:
used[i] = true
val[i] = v
return
# No free slots, so throw exception.
throw out-of-memory
public function del(int v) throws bad-value:
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If slot used and contains value.
if used[i] and val[i] == v:
# Mark unused and return.
used[i] = false
return
# Value not found in any used slot, throw exception.
throw bad-value
public function has(int v):
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If slot used and contains value.
if used[i] and val[i] == v:
return true
# Value not found in any used slot.
return false
Now the only information published here are the constructor and three functions for adding, deleting, and checking for values (including what exceptions can be thrown).
Callers need know nothing about the internal data structures being used (val and used), or the properties of the functions beyond their "signatures" (the content of the "function" lines).
Because everything else is encapsulated, it can changed it at will without breaking the code that uses it.
I could, for example, do any of the following:
make the arrays longer;
store the data sorted, or in a binary tree instead of an array to make it faster.
change the used array into a count array (initialised to zero) so that many occurrences of a single number use just the one slot, increasing the quantity of numbers that can be stored where there are duplicates.
store the numbers in a database, located on a ZX-80 retro-computer located in outback Australia, and powered by methane produced from kangaroo droppings (though you may notice a latency change).
Basically, as long as the published API doesn't change, we am free to do whatever we want. In fact, we can also add things to the API without breaking other code, I just can't delete or change anything that users already rely on.
You should note that encapsulation isn't something new with object orientation. It's been around for ages, even in C by ensuring that information is hidden within a module (usually a source file or group thereof with private headers).
In fact, the stdio.h FILE* stuff is a good example of this. You don't care what's actually behind the pointer since all the functions which use it know how to do their stuff.
link text
I always explain it to people is think of yourself as an object. Other people can see your height, they can see if your smiling, but your inner thoughts, maybe the reason while your smiling, only you know.
Encapsulation is more than just defining accessor and mutator methods for a class. It is broader concept of object-oriented programming that consists in minimizing the interdependence between classes and it is typically implemented through information hiding.
The beauty of encapsulation is the power of changing things without affecting its users.
In a object-oriented programming language like Java, you achieve encapsulation by hiding details using the accessibility modifiers (public, protected, private, plus no modifier which implies package private). With these levels of accessibility you control the level of encapsulation, the less restrictive the level, the more expensive change is when it happens and the more coupled the class is with other dependent classes (i.e. user classes, subclasses).
Therefore, the goal is not to hide the data itself, but the implementation details on how this data is manipulated.
The idea is to provide a public interface through which you gain access to this data. You can later change the internal representation of the data without compromising the public interface of the class. On the contrary, by exposing the data itself, you compromise encapsulation, and therefore, the capacity of changing the way you manipulate the data without affecting its users. You create a dependency with the data itself, and not with the public interface of the class. You would be creating a perfect cocktail for trouble when "change" finally finds you.
There are several reasons why you might want to encapsulate access to your fields. Joshua Bloch in his book Effective Java, in Item 14: Minimize the accessibility of classes and members, mentions several compelling reasons, which I quote here:
You can limit the values that can be stored in a field (i.e. gender must be F or M).
You can take actions when the field is modified (trigger event, validate, etc).
You can provide thread safety by synchronizing the method.
You can switch to a new data representation (i.e. calculated fields, different data type)
However, encapsulation is more than hiding fields. In Java you can hide entire classes, by this, hiding the implementation details of an entire API. Think, for example, in the method Arrays.asList(). It returns a List implementation, but you do no care which implementation, as long as it satisfies the List interface, right?. The implementation can be changed in the future without affecting the users of the method.
The Beauty of Encapsulation
Now, in my opinion, to really understand encapsulation, one must first understand abstraction.
Think, for example, in the level of abstraction in the concept of a car. A car is complex in its internal implementation. They have several subsystem, like a transmission system, a break system, a fuel system, etc.
However, we have simplified its abstraction, and we interact with all cars in the world through the public interface of their abstraction. We know that all cars have a steering wheel through which we control direction, they have a pedal that when you press it you accelerate the car and control speed, and another one that when you press it you make it stop, and you have a gear stick that let you control if you go forward or backwards. These features constitute the public interface of the car abstraction. In the morning you can drive a sedan and then get out of it and drive an SUV in the afternoon as if it was the same thing.
However, few of us know the details of how all these features are implemented under the hood. Think of the time when cars did not have a hydraulics directional system. One day, the car manufactures invented it, and they decide it to put it in cars from there on. Still, this did not change the way in which users where interacting with them. At most, users experienced an improvement in the use of the directional system. A change like this was possible because the internal implementation of a car is encapsulated. Changes can be safely done without affecting its public interface.
Now, think that car manufactures decided to put the fuel cap below the car, and not in one of its sides. You go and buy one of these new cars, and when you run out of gas you go to the gas station, and you do not find the fuel cap. Suddenly you realize is below the car, but you cannot reach it with the gas pump hose. Now, we have broken the public interface contract, and therefore, the entire world breaks, it falls apart because things are not working the way it was expected. A change like this would cost millions. We would need to change all gas pumps in the world. When we break encapsulation we have to pay a price.
So, as you can see, the goal of encapsulation is to minimize interdependence and facilitate change. You maximize encapsulation by minimizing the exposure of implementation details. The state of a class should only be accessed through its public interface.
I really recommend you to read a paper by Alan Snyder called Encapsulation and Inheritance in Object-Oriented programming Languages. This link points to the original paper on ACM, but I am pretty sure you will be able to find a PDF copy through Google.
Encapsulation - wrapping of data in single unit. also we can say hiding the information of essential details.
example
You have a mobile phone.... there it some interface which helps u to interact with cell phone and u can uses the services of mobile phone. But the actually working in cell phone is hide. u don't know how it works internally.
hide/bind something : eg: a capsule (which we consume when v r ill)hide/bind some powder form in itself,, means that capsule encapsulate the powder contained it.
Binding of data and behavior i.e functionality of an object in a secured and controlled manner.
or the best example of encapsulation is a CLASS because a class hides class variables/functions from outside d class..
Encapsulation:
Wrapping up data member and method together into a single unit (i.e. Class) is called Encapsulation.
Eg: we can consider a capsule. Encapsulation means hiding the internal details of an object, i.e. how an object does something. Here capsule is a single Unit contain many things. But we cant see what is there in side capsule.
This is the technique used to protect information about an object from other objects. Like variable we can set as private and property as Public. When we access the property then we validate and set it.
We can go through some other examples. Our Laptop. We can use Laptop but what operations are happening inside that we are not knowing. But we can use that. Same like mobile, TV etc.
We can conclude that a group of related properties, methods, and other members are treated as a single unit or object.An encapsulated object is often called an abstract data type.
There are several other ways that an encapsulation can be used, as an example we can take the usage of an interface. The interface can be used to hide the information of an implemented class.
//Declare as Private
private string _LegName;
// Property Set as public
public string LegName
{
get
{
return _LegName;
}
set
{
_LegName=value;
}
public class LegMain
{
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
Leg L= new Leg();
d.LegName="Right Leg";
Console.WriteLine("The Legis :{0}",d.LegName);return 0;
}
}
Note: Encapsulation provides a way to protect data from accidental corruption.
Thank you
Encapsulation means hiding the data. In other words a class only exposes those properties or information which is authorized to be seen. Consider the below exapmle where a certain property called ConfidentialMessage is accesible only to the Admin role. This property is made private and is returned through another method which checks the role of an user and return the message only for admin.
public class Message
{
public Message()
{
ConfidentialMessage = "I am Nemo";
}
private string ConfidentialMessage { get; set; }
public string GetMessage(string name)
{
string message = string.Empty;
if (name == "Admin")
{
message = this.ConfidentialMessage;
}
return message;
}
}
Putting definition of encapsulate
enclose in a capsule, from en- "make, put in" + capsule + -ate .
now capsule meaning is box, case
In real life example if you put things on desk open then it is accessible to anyone but if you put in case then it is accessible with the key of case to open.
Same way in class if you create a variable then it accessible whenever you create object of that class.But if you create function to access the variable then you have created case and function is key to access the variable.
So in programming language we are creating wrapper of the data by using getter and setter and making it private variable.
Encapsulation is a capsule, consider it to be a class enclosing or hiding fields, properties and functions.
Please check below url encapsulation is simplified with simple programming example.
http://itsforlavanya.blogspot.com/2020/08/encapsulation.html?m=1
We have lots of immutable value objects in our domain model, one example of this is a position, defined by a latitude, longitude & height.
/// <remarks>When I grow up I want to be an F# record.</remarks>
public class Position
{
public double Latitude
{
get;
private set;
}
// snip
public Position(double latitude, double longitude, double height)
{
Latitude = latitude;
// snip
}
}
The obvious way to allow editing of a position is to build a ViewModel which has getters and setters, as well as a ToPosition() method to extract the validated immutable position instance. While this solution would be ok, it would result in a lot of duplicated code, especially XAML.
The value objects in question consist of between three and five properties which are usually some variant of X, Y, Z & some auxiliary stuff. Given this, I had considered creating three ViewModels to handle the various possibilities, where each ViewModel would need to expose properties for the value of each property as well as a description to display for each label (eg. "Latitude").
Going further, it seems like I could simplify it to one general ViewModel that can deal with N properties and hook everything up using reflection. Something like a property grid, but for immutable objects. One issue with a property grid is that I want to be able to change the look so I can have labels and textboxes such as:
Latitude: [ 32 ] <- TextBox
Longitude: [ 115 ]
Height: [ 12 ]
Or put it in a DataGrid such as:
Latitude | Longitude | Height
32 115 12
So my question is:
Can you think of an elegant way to solve this problem? Are there any libraries that do this or articles about something similar?
I'm mainly looking for:
Code duplication to be minimized
Easy to add new value object types
Possible to extend with some kind of validation
Custom Type Descriptors could be used to solve this problem. Before you bind to a Position, your type descriptor could kick in, and provide get and set methods to temporarily build the values. When the changes are committed, it could build the immutable object.
It might look something like this:
DataContext = new Mutable(position,
dictionary => new Position(dictionary["lattitude"], ...)
);
Your bindings can still look like this:
<TextBox Text="{Binding Path=Lattitude}" />
Because the Mutable object will 'pretend' to have properties like Lattitude thanks to its TypeDescriptor.
Alternatively you might use a converter in your bindings and come up with some kind of convention.
Your Mutable class would take the current immutable object, and a Func<IDictionary, object> that allows you to create the new immutable object once editing completes. Your Mutable class would make use of the type descriptor, which would create PropertyDescriptors that create the new immutable object upon being set.
For an example of how to use type descriptors, see here:
http://www.paulstovell.com/editable-object-adapter
Edit: if you want to limit how often your immutable objects are created, you might also look at BindingGroups and IEditableObject, which your Mutable can also implement.
I found this old question while researching my possible options in the same situation. I figured I should update it in case anyone else stumbles on to it:
Another option (not available when Paul offered his solution since .Net 4 wasn't out yet) is to use the same strategy, but instead of implementing it using CustomTypeDescriptors, use a combination of generics, dynamic objects and reflection to achieve the same effect.
In this case, you define a class
class Mutable<ImmutableType> : DynamicObject
{
//...
}
It's constructor takes an instance of the immutable type and a delegate that constructs a new instance of it out of a dictionary, just like in Paul's answer. The difference here, however, is that you override the TryGetMember and TrySetMember to populate an internal dictionary that you're eventually going to use as the argument for the constructor-delegate. You use reflection in order to verify that the only properties that you're accepting are those that are actually implemented in ImmutableType.
Performance wise, I wager that Paul's answer is faster, and doesn't involve dynamic objects, which are known to put C# developers into fits. But the implementation for this solution is also a little simpler, because Type Descriptors are a bit arcane.
Here's the requested proof-of-concept / example implementation:
https://bitbucket.org/jwrush/mutable-generic-example
Can you think of an elegant way to solve this problem?
Honestly, you just dance around the problem, but don't mention the problem itself ;).
If I correctly guess your problem, then the combination of MultiBinding and IMultiValueConverter should do the trick.
HTH.
P.S. BTW, you have immutable class instances, not value objects. With value objects (which are described by struct keyword) you would dance much more no matter if there were setters or not :).
The problem domain features a large population of named snarks. Some of the snarks are boojums.
There are at least two ways to model this:
// as a property:
class Snark {
string name;
bool is_boojum;
};
// as a list:
class Snark {
typedef long Id;
Id id;
string name;
};
tree<Snark::Id> boojums;
It seems intuitive that if we determined that snarks come in male and female, we would add a "sex" property to the snark class definition; and if we determined that all but five snarks were vanquished subjects, we would make a list of royals.
Are there principles one can apply, or is it a matter of architectural preference?
What problem are you trying to solve?
If the purpose of recording the royalty of the snarks is to display a crown on their heads in the GUI, then it makes sense for it to merely be an attribute. (Alternatively, there could be a RoyalSnark subclass, with an overridden Render method.)
If the purpose is to quickly find all the royal snarks, then a list is more appropriate - otherwise you would need to look at every snark and check its attribute.
I believe that the information entropy associated with the classification can be a guide to which method to use. Low-entropy classifications (i.e. most of the objects have the same value) suggest a list implementation tracking the exceptional cases, while high-entropy classifications (you cannot make any very good predictions about which classification an object will have) suggest a property implementation.
As a derived class:
class Snark
{
virtual void Approach(Creature& approacher) {};
};
class Boojum : public Snark
{
virtual void Approach(Creature& approacher)
{
approacher.softlySuddenlyVanishAway();
}
};
That natural way to do it seems to be a property in all cases.
You might use a list for performance, or to optimise space. Both reasons strike me as potential cases of premature optimisation, breaking encapsulation, and/or storing redundant data with the consequent risk of lack of integrity (because I should still be able to query the object itself to find out if it is royal - I shouldn't have to know that this property is handled in a special way for reasons of performance). You could I suppose hide the list implementation behind a getter, to make it behave as a property.
Also, if these objects were stored in a DB, the performance issue pretty much goes away as the DB layer can create the list at runtime using a query anyway.
If you're asking about database modeling, then it's most straightforward to treat is_boojum as an attribute column in the table Snarks. If you need to search for all boojums, the query is simple:
SELECT * FROM Snarks WHERE is_boojum = 1
This gives logically correct answers, and it's easy to model. It might not be so speedy, because indexing a column with low selectivity (many rows with identical values) isn't very efficient, and might not benefit from the index at all.
But your question was about modeling, not optimization.
Hmmm. My first thought is that, indeed, Boojum is a subtype of Snark. but the specification seems to argue against it, for "the snark was a boojum, you see." Well, that means the snark is_a Boojum, and that would make the inheritance graph cyclic. Can't have that.
On the other hand, I do'nt think there's any indication that a Snark can become a Boojum; either it's a Boojum or it's not.
I think probably you want a Boojum mixin --
abstract class Snark { /*...*/ };
class PlainSnark extends Snark {/*...*/};
class RoyalSnark extends Snark implements Boojum {/*...*/};