I make this async webrequest call mutliple times(can be twice or thrice or even 6 times depending on conditions)
var request = HttpWebRequest.CreateHttp(url);
var observableRequest = Observable.FromAsyncPattern<WebResponse>(
request.BeginGetResponse, request.EndGetResponse);
Observable.Timeout(observableRequest.Invoke(), TimeSpan.FromSeconds(120)).
Subscribe(response => { HandleListResult(response); },
exception => { HandleListResultTimeOut(exception); });
I have a Collection (List) in the ViewModel which has a Binding to a LisBox and i would like to keep adding to the collection after each response returns.
What is the best practice to make this happen using Reactive Extensions ? Would be great if someone can show me some sample code !
Thanks in advance
You can translate url flow directly into streams:
public static IObservable<Stream> RequestToStream(
this IObservable<string> source, TimeSpan timeout)
{
return
from wc in source.Select(WebRequest.Create)
from s in Observable
.FromAsyncPattern<WebResponse>(wc.BeginGetResponse,
wc.EndGetResponse)()
.Timeout(timeout, Observable.Empty<WebResponse>())
.Catch(Observable.Empty<WebResponse>())
select s.GetResponseStream();
}
And then you need to observe your responces on UI, you need to use .ObserveOnDispatcher(), f.e.:
Observable
.Return("www.msdn.com")
.RequestToStream(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1))
.ObserveOnDispatcher()
.Subscribe(request => UpdateUI(Request));
In ReactiveUI, this is done via CreateCollection()
IObservable<string> source; // Maybe this is a Subject<string> or whatever
myBoundCollection = source
.SelectMany(webServiceCall) // This is your FromAsyncPattern func
.CreateCollection(); // Pipe the Observable to a Collection
ReactiveUI handles all of the ObserveOn stuff to make sure it's synchronized and on the right threads, etc. This call returns immediately with an Empty list, then as results come in, the collection gets populated.
Related
I'm trying to page a data set in a WPF application.
My service method looks like this:
public ObservableCollection<MyModel> GetPageOfModels(int projectId, int numSkip, int numResults)
{
this.db.Set<MyModel>()
.Where(x => x.Project.Id == projectId)
.OrderBy(x => x.Name)
.Skip(numSkip)
.Take(numResults)
.Load();
return this.db.Set<MyModel>().Local;
}
This works great the first time it is hit. But when I move to a different page, Load() is adding the next page to the set, rather than replacing it.
If I recreate the data context before each call to GetPageOfModels it works, but I need to keep the same data context. Is there any way to achieve this?
If you must keep the context then you could detach everything before getting the next page.
foreach(var entity in db.Set<MyModel>().Local.ToList())
db.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Detached;
I've got a many-to-many relationship in Breeze:
Product *---1 ProductWidgets 1----* Widgets
Product needs to know when any of it's Widgets changes. Widgets can be added or removed from Products at any time.
Ideally, I'd want to do something like:
product.widgets.on('change', function () {});
...but I'm imagining I need something like:
var handleWidgetChange = function (changes) {
console.log("here are the changes", changes);
};
for(var i = 0; i < product.productWidgets.length; i++) {
// make sure we're getting events for the current set of widgets
product.productWidgets[i].widget.entityAspect.propertyChanged.subscribe(handleWidgetChange);
// if any of the current set of product widgets gets pointed elsewhere, catch that
product.productWidgets[i].entityAspect.propertyChanged.subscribe(function (change) {
if (change.propertyName === "widget") {
change.oldValue.entityAspect.propertyChanged.unsubscribe();
change.oldValue.entityAspect.propertyChanged.subscribe(handleWidgetChange);
}
})
}
// handle new product widgets and removal of product widgets
product.productWidgets.arrayChanged.subscribe(function (change) {
if (change.added) {
change.added[0].widget.entityAspect.propertyChanged.subscribe(handleWidgetChange);
} else if (change.removed) {
change.removed[0].widget.entityAspect.propertyChanged.unsubscribe();
}
});
Is there a recommended way to achieve this?
(Note: I'm using angular, and would love to just $watch('product.productWidgets', function () {}, true) but that gives a circular reference error.)
Memory leaks are a huge risk in JavaScript, in part because there are no weak references. You must be careful with events. You really don't want to iterate over entities adding and removing subscriptions.
You also do not want to use Angular watches for monitoring model changes because you'll drive UI performance into the ground. There are too many entities with too many properties and you'll surely make a mistake by leaving watches in place long after you should have stopped watching.
Fortunately, Breeze provides a central entity change monitoring facility. A Breeze EntityManager listens for changes to any of the entities it holds in cache.
var widgetType = manager.metadataStore.getEntityType('Widget');
var productWidgetType = manager.metadataStore.getEntityType('ProductWidget');
entityManager.entityChanged.subscribe(entityChanged);
function entityChanged(changeArgs) {
var entity = changeArgs.entity;
if (entity.entityType === productWidgetType ||
entity.entityType === widgetType) {
// do what you do when someone does something to an entity of this type
// perhaps call back into a method on that instance that knows what to do
entity.somethingChanged(changeArgs.entityAction);
}
}
This one event notifies you of any change to any entity in the manager's cache. It will be called frequently so be crisp in your evaluation. For example, consider deactivating your event handler during queries.
The changeArgs.entityAction tells you what just happened to the entity. There are many actions that trigger this event: a property could change, its EntityState could change (add/modify/delete/detach), etc.
You don't have to worry about the product.productWidgets array. When a ProductWidget is added or removed from that array, the ProductWidget.productId foreign key will change ... and you're picking that up in this entityChanged handler.
There is no need to worry about a memory leak because the EntityManager already holds a reference to the entity and will continue to do so until you detach the entity or dispose of the EntityManager instance (and all of your own or the UI's references to the entity). That, to my mind, is appropriate lifetime management.
I am having some difficulty with ordering an observable collection in my ViewModel.
Here is my situation:
In my view model, I have the following list:
public List<TicketModel> Tickets
{
get { return _Tickets.Value; }
set
{
{
this.RaiseAndSetIfChanged(c => c.Tickets, value);
}
}
}
private ObservableAsPropertyHelper<List<TicketModel>> _Tickets;
This list is populated using a ReactiveAsyncCommand:
LoadTickets.RegisterAsyncFunction(x => loadTickets())
.ToProperty(this, x => x.Tickets);
All works so far.
I have another command, SortByCommand which gets called whenever the user wants to sort a collection. The command looks like this:
SortByCommand = new ReactiveCommand(this.WhenAny(c => c.Tickets, ((tickets) => tickets.Value != null && tickets.Value.Count > 0)));
SortByCommand.Subscribe(c => sortTickets((SortByModel)c));
The command also calls a function that orders the collection using an order by clause:
private void sortTickets(SortByModel model)
{
Tickets = Tickets.OrderBy(model.Selector).ToList();
}
Whenever the sortTickets function is called, there is an exception thrown which says:
Unable to cast object of type 'ReactiveUI.ObservableAsPropertyHelper`1[System.Collections.Generic.List`1[Bugmine.Modules.MyPage.Models.TicketModel]]' to type 'System.Collections.Generic.List`1[Bugmine.Modules.MyPage.Models.TicketModel]'.
I have several questions:
1) Why can't I set directly the Tickets model? Do I need to first convert the result of the OrderBy to some sort of observable collection?
2) Is there a better way of doing this?
EDIT: Clarification
The approach I am taking right now is:
The Tickets collection gets reset every x seconds.
As soon as the sortTickets function is called, I will sort and reset this collection by:
Tickets = Tickets.OrderBy(c => c.Name).ToList(); //for example
When the Tickets collection is loaded again, I will check if it should be sorted and sort it before setting the Tickets property.
This feels a bit hacky because I am basically setting the collection at two points - upon loading and upon sorting. Moreover, upon loading I am using the ReactiveUI helper -> ToProperty:
LoadTickets.RegisterAsyncFunction(x => loadTickets())
.ToProperty(this, x => x.Tickets);
Whereas, upon sorting I am doing that myself:
Tickets = Tickets.OrderBy(model.Selector).ToList();
I am wondering if there is a better way to do the sorting using the ReactiveUI approach which I already use upon loading.
Thanks in advance!
Another way to solve this is via CreateDerivedCollection:
SortedTickets = Tickets.CreateDerivedCollection(
x => new TicketViewModel(x),
orderer: (l,r) => SortModel.Selector(l, r), // Returns CompareTo() result
signalReset: this.WhenAny(x => x.SortModel, x => x.Value)); // Reorder on SortModel change
Note that this breaks down if Tickets is set repeatedly (which in this case it is) - you might change your model to initializing Tickets in the ctor, then Clearing and Adding all the items, i.e.
LoadTickets.RegisterAsyncFunction(x => loadTickets())
.Subscribe(x => {
// TODO: Make sure Tickets is a ReactiveCollection
Tickets.Clear();
Tickets.AddRange(x); // Will trigger resorting of SortedTickets
});
Just had a look on Ana's blog http://blog.paulbetts.org/index.php/2010/07/05/reactivexaml-series-implementing-search-with-observableaspropertyhelper/
//
// This is the canonical way to make a read-only property whose value
// is backed by an IObservable
//
ObservableAsPropertyHelper<List<FlickrPhoto>> _Photos;
I think the read-only is the important point there.
Instead you could try using a normal observable where you can use OnNext to push in the new value
private Observable<List<TicketModel>> _Tickets = new Observable<Lis<TicketModel>>();
_Tickets.OnNext(newValue);
Or use a ObservableForProperty<> and just use the property normally
public List<TicketModel> _Tickets { get;set;}
private Observable<List<TicketModel>> _ticketsObservable= ObservableForProperty<..>(x=>x.Tickets);
Both of these methods expose an Observable which we can use later in the sort.
Why not try handling the two inputs into your sort in the same way, then it wont feel so hacky. That way you'll also have an
public SortModel SortModel {get;set;}
Your sort command implementation becomes
SortByCommand.Subscribe(c => _Sort = c));
but then you subsribe to both ticket changes AND sort criteria changes in one, see http://rxwiki.wikidot.com/101samples#toc44 for CombineLatest
new ObservableForProperty<..>(x=>x.SortModel)
.CombineLatest(_ticketsObservable)
.Subscribe( (x,y)=>
{
//Refactor to SortMethod
_tickets = y.OrderBy(x.Selector);
});
I'm pretty sure that the result of OrderBy(..) is an IEnumerable instead of an ObservableCollection. Fortunately though, it has a constructor that can do the conversion, i.e.
Tickets = new ObservableCollection<...>(Tickets.OrderBy(...));
"Better" can be very subjective measure. Firstly you haven't explained the full lifespan of the Tickets collection and the tickets it contains, so we can't really tell.
You might consider using a SortedTickets field/property instead of overwriting your tickets property which you might find you wouldn't need to be an observable collection as you would know when it needs to NotfyProperryChanged from the Tickets observable. It all depends on how frequently your tickets is likely to change.
P.S. Also make sure you have tested what happens to your sorted list when you add another ticket as you can't just
I would like to be able to call save() on a backbone model and have the backend return the entire collection of this model instead of only the changed attributes of the model. I would then like backbone to update the entire returned collection. The use case for this is the following:
A user has multiple addresses and can choose a shipping address from this collection. If she chooses a different shipping address from the collection the previous shipping address should be updated to the state of 'just another plain address'. For this the entire collection has to be updated instead of only the changed model.
Is this somehow possible in backbone.js?
Thanks a lot in advance!
models that are bound to collections, contain their collection parent as a property. Also, since your returning a list of models, we can assume that it is always in a list.
mymodel = Backbone.Model.extend({
parse: function (data) {
if(this.collection && typeof(data) === 'array') {
this.collection.reset(data);
}
return data;
}
});
I do not think that overriding sync or breaking the expectations of what save returns is necessary here.
It would be simpler I guess to override save on the model, something on the lines of:
save: function (key, value, options) {
var p = Model.prototype.save.call(this, key, value, options),
self=this;
if (this.collection) {
p.done(function () { self.collection.fetch(); });
}
return p;
}
which will save using the normal save obtaining its promise, and then if saving was successful and the model is part of a collection, it will fetch the collection from the server.
Another way would be to bind to the model's change event, check if it belongs to a collection and fetch, but that would also happen on set.
Yep, it's possible. You'll need to override the sync function on the model
MyModel = Backbone.Model.extend({
sync: function(method, model) {
if (method === 'create') {
//perform save logic and update the model's collection
} else if (method === 'update') {
//perform save logic and update the model's collection
} else if (method === 'read') {
...
} else if (method === 'destroy') {
...
}
}
});
Take a look at the Backbone.sync function for more information.
What your use case actually calls for is the updating of two models, not the updating of an entire collection. (Other than fetching, collections don't interact with the server in Backbone.) Assuming you have addresses A, B, and C, with A as the current shipping address and C as the new shipping address, your code can simply:
Update C to be the new shipping address.
Update A to be 'just another address.'
If your problem is that you don't know which address is the current address (i.e., address A), then you can just search inside your collection for it (i.e., "give me the current shipping address"), update C, and then update the returned address (address A).
If you absolutely need to update an entire collection (you don't), cycle through collection.models and update each one individually. There simply is no concept in Backbone of a collection being acted upon RESTfully.
Edit: I may have misread your question. If you meant update the collection on the client (i.e., you didn't intend to update the collection on the server), then the code is still similar, you just update both the old model and the new one.
The standard way to use the localStorage plugin for Backbone.js works like this:
App.WordList = Backbone.Collection.extend({
initialize : function(models, options){
},
localStorage : new Store('English')
}
But I want to make different, parallel wordlist collections in different languages. So, I want to be able to instantiate the name of the Store upon initialization of the collection. AFAICT, this works ok:
App.WordList = Backbone.Collection.extend({
initialize : function(models, options){
this.localStorage = new Store(options.language);
}
}
Then I can instantiate a WordList like:
english = new Wordlist([], {language: 'English'});
Or:
chinese = new Wordlist([], {language: 'Chinese'});
The thing is, I haven't really seen this done in any other examples and I'm wondering if anyone out there would have any "Eek! Don't do that, because..." sorts of reactions.
EDIT
I should add that I have already tried doing it this way:
App.WordList = Backbone.Collection.extend({
initialize : function(models, options){
},
localStorage : new Store(options.store)
}
And then:
chinese = new Wordlist([], {language: 'Chinese'});
But for some reason options.store is coming up undefined.
It's easier to explain myself as an answer, so I'll go ahead and give one.
In:
App.WordList = Backbone.Collection.extend({
initialize : function(models, options){
....
},
localStorage : new Store(options.store)
})
This is really little different from
var newInstanceConfig = {
initialize : function(models, options){
....
},
localStorage : new Store(options.store)
}
App.WordList = Backbone.Collection.extend(newInstanceConfig);
Think of it this way; there's nothing magical about the object being passed in to Backbone.Collection.extend(...). You're just passing in an ordinary object. The magic happens when Backbone.Collection.extend is invoked with that object as a parameter
Thus, the options parameter of the object method initialize is completely different that which is being passed in to new Store(...). The function being assigned initialize is defining the scope of options. Who knows where the one referred to in new Store(options.store) is defined. It could be window.options or it could be options defined in some other scope. If it's undefined, you're likely getting an error
That being said, I only see two or three strategic options (oh jeez, forgive the pun please!).
Whenever you're creating a new instance of the collection, either:
Pass in the language and let your Backbone collection create the new Store(..) where needed.
Pre-Create the Stores and either pass or give the specific Store want to that instance (either directly through its constructor or maybe you have your constructor "look-up" the appropriate pre-created Store).
And finally, I guess you could delegate the task of creating stores to another object and have it implement either options one or two. (Basically a Store Factory/Resource Manager kinda thing).
What you need to figure out is which one of those strategies should work for you. I have never used localStorage so, unfortunately, I can't help you in that regard. What I can do is ask, is there ever going to be multiple instances created from App.Wordlist where there might accidentally be created two of the same kind of Store?
In fact, I've got another question. where is this Store defined? Are you sure that's not defined somewhere in one of your other API libraries you're using? Perusing the localStorage docs I know about mentions something of a Storage constructor but nothing of a Store. So you might want to figure out that as well.
Edit #1: Nevermind, I see you mentioned where Store was defined.
I got around this by creating a method which allows you to configure the localStorage after instantiation:
var PageAssetCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend ({
initialize: <stuff>
model: <something>
...
setLocalStorage: function ( storageKey ) {
this.localStorage = new Backbone.LocalStorage(storageKey),
},
});
you can then set the localStorage after you have set up the collection:
fooPageAssets = new PageAssetCollection();
fooPageAssets.setLocalStorage('bar');