I would like to create a new array with a given type from a class object in GWT.
What I mean is I would like to emulate the functionality of
java.lang.reflect.Array.newInstance(Class<?> componentClass, int size)
The reason I need this to occur is that I have a library which occasionally needs to do the following:
Class<?> cls = array.getClass();
Class<?> cmp = cls.getComponentType();
This works if I pass it an array class normally, but I can't dynamically create a new array from some arbitrary component type.
I am well aware of GWT's lack of reflection; I understand this. However, this seems feasible even given GWT's limited reflection. The reason I believe this is that in the implementation, there exists an inaccessible static method for creating a class object for an array.
Similarly, I understand the array methods to just be type-safe wrappers around JavaScript arrays, and so should be easily hackable, even if JSNI is required.
In reality, the more important thing would be getting the class object, I can work around not being able to make new arrays.
If you are cool with creating a seed array of the correct type, you can use jsni along with some knowledge of super-super-source to create arrays WITHOUT copying through ArrayList (I avoid java.util overhead like the plague):
public static native <T> T[] newArray(T[] seed, int length)
/*-{
return #com.google.gwt.lang.Array::createFrom([Ljava/lang/Object;I)(seed, length);
}-*/;
Where seed is a zero-length array of the correct type you want, and length is the length you want (although, in production mode, arrays don't really have upper bounds, it makes the [].length field work correctly).
The com.google.gwt.lang package is a set of core utilities used in the compiler for base emulation, and can be found in gwt-dev!com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/intrinsic/com/google/gwt/lang.
You can only use these classes through jsni calls, and only in production gwt code (use if GWT.isProdMode()). In general, if you only access the com.google.gwt.lang classes in super-source code, you are guaranteed to never leak references to classes that only exist in compiled javascript.
if (GWT.isProdMode()){
return newArray(seed, length);
}else{
return Array.newInstance(seed.getComponentType(), length);
}
Note, you'll probably need to super-source the java.lang.reflect.Array class to avoid gwt compiler error, which suggests you'll want to put your native helper method there. However, I can't help you more than this, as it would overstep the bounds of my work contract.
The way that I did a similar thing was to pass an empty, 0 length array to the constructor of the object that will want to create the array from.
public class Foo extends Bar<Baz> {
public Foo()
{
super(new Baz[0]);
}
...
}
Baz:
public abstract class Baz<T>
{
private T[] emptyArray;
public Baz(T[] emptyArray)
{
this.emptyArray = emptyArray;
}
...
}
In this case the Bar class can't directly create new T[10], but we can do this:
ArrayList<T> al = new ArrayList<T>();
// add the items you want etc
T[] theArray = al.toArray(emptyArray);
And you get your array in a typesafe way (otherwise in your call super(new Baz[0]); will cause a compiler error).
I had to do something similar, I found it was possible using the Guava library's ObjectArrays class. Instead of the class object it requires a reference to an existing array.
T[] newArray = ObjectArrays.newArray(oldArray, oldArray.length);
For implementing an array concatenation method, I also stepped into the issue of missing Array.newInstance-method.
It's still not implemented, but if you have an existing array you can use
Arrays.copyOf(T[] original, int newLength)
instead.
Related
I want to get rid of clone() method.
For the below class sonar (static code check tool) was complaining that
I should not directly expose an internal array of the object as one can change the array after the method call which in turn changes the object's state. It suggested to do a clone() of that array before returning so that object's state is not changed.
Below is my class...
class DevicePlatformAggregator implements IPlatformListings{
private DevicePlatform[] platforms = null;
public DevicePlatform[] getAllPlatforms() throws DevicePlatformNotFoundException {
if (null != platforms) {
return platforms.clone();
}
List<DevicePlatform> platformlist = new ArrayList<DevicePlatform>();
..... // code that populates platformlist
platforms = platformlist.toArray(new DevicePlatform[platformlist.size()]);
return platforms;
}
}
However I don't think its good to clone as its unnecessary to duplicate the data.
There is nothing similar to Collections.unmodifiableList() for array
I can not change the return type of the method getAllPlatforms() to some
collection as it is an interface method
I am not a Java guru but I am pretty confident that you are out of luck here. There is no way to make a primitive array immutable apart from creating an array of 0 elements.
Making it final won't help cause only the reference pointing to it would be immutable.
As you already said the way to go in obtaining an unmodifiable list would be to use Collections as in the following example:
List<Integer> contentcannotbemodified= Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(13,1,8,6));
Hope it helps.
Both Java and Javascript allow for a different way of executing static code. Java allows you to have static code in the body of a class while JS allows you to execute static code outside class definitions. Examples:
Java:
public class MyClass {
private static Map<String,String> someMap = new HashMap<String,String();
static {
someMap.put("key1","value");
someMap.put("key2","value");
SomeOtherClass.someOtherStaticMethod();
System.out.println(someMap);
}
}
JS (basically any JS code outside a class):
var myint = 5;
callSomeMethod();
$(document).ready(function () {
$("#hiddenelement").hide();
});
However, it seems like Dart supports either of both ways. Declaring global variables and methods is supported, but calling methods and executing code like in JS is not. This can only be done in a main() method. Also, static code inside a class is not allowed either.
I know Dart has other ways to statically fill a Map like my first example, but there is another case that I can think of for which this is required.
Let's consider the following CarRegistry implementation that allows you to map strings of the car model to an instance of the corresponding class. F.e. when you get the car models from JSON data:
class CarRegistry {
static Map<String, Function> _factoryMethods = new HashMap<String, Function>();
static void registerFactory(String key, Car factory()) {
_factoryMethods[key] = factory;
}
static Car createInstance(String key) {
Function factory = _factoryMethods[key];
if(factory != null) {
return factory();
}
throw new Exception("Key not found: $key");
}
}
class TeslaModelS extends Car {
}
class TeslaModelX extends Car {
}
In order to be able to call CarRegistry.createInstance("teslamodelx");, the class must first be registered. In Java this could be done by adding the following line to each Car class: static { CarRegistry.registerFactory("teslamodelx" , () => new TeslaModelX()); }. What you don't want is to hard-code all cars into the registry, because it will lose it's function as a registry, and it increases coupling. You want to be able to add a new car by only adding one new file. In JS you could call the CarRegistry.registerFactory("teslamodelx" , () => new TeslaModelX()); line outside the class construct.
How could a similar thing be done in Dart?
Even if you would allow to edit multiple files to add a new car, it would not be possible if you are writing a library without a main() method. The only option then is to fill the map on the first call of the Registry.createInstance() method, but it's no longer a registry then, just a class containing a hard-coded list of cars.
EDIT: A small addition to the last statement I made here: filling this kind of registry in the createInstance() method is only an option if the registry resided in my own library. If, f.e. I want to register my own classes to a registry provided by a different library that I imported, that's no longer an option.
Why all the fuss about static?
You can create a getter that checks if the initialization was already done (_factoryMethods != null) if not do it and return the map.
As far a I understand it, this is all about at what time this code should be executed.
The approach I showed above is lazy initialization.
I think this is usually the preferred way I guess.
If you want to do initialization when the library is loaded
I don't know another way as calling an init() method of the library from main() and add initialization code this libraries init() method.
Here is a discussion about this topic executing code at library initialization time
I encountered the same issue when trying to drive a similarly themed library.
My initial attempt explored using dart:mirrors to iterate over classes in a library and determine if they were tagged by an annotation like this (using your own code as part of the example):
#car('telsamodelx')
class TelsaModelX extends Car {
}
If so, they got automatically populated into the registry. Performance wasn't great, though, and I wasn't sure if how it was going to scale.
I ended up taking a more cumbersome approach:
// Inside of CarRegistry.dart
class CarRegister {
static bool _registeredAll = false;
static Car create() {
if (!_registeredAll) { _registerAll()); }
/* ... */
}
}
// Inside of the same library, telsa_model_x.dart
class TelsaModelX extends Car {}
// Inside of the same library, global namespace:
// This method registers all "default" vehicles in the vehicle registery.
_registerAll() {
register('telsamodelx', () => new TelsaModelX());
}
// Inside of the same library, global namespace:
register(carName, carFxn) { /* ... */ }
Outside of the library, consumers had to call register(); somewhere to register their vehicle.
It is unnecessary duplication, and unfortunately separates the registration from the class in a way that makes it hard to track, but it's either cumbersome code or a performance hit by using dart:mirrors.
YMMV, but as the number of register-able items grow, I'm starting to look towards the dart:mirrors approach again.
i have 2 projects in my solution (main is A.WPF and secondary is B.WPF)
when i'm trying to access variables inside my App.xaml.cs in B.WPF:
filename = ((App)Application.Current).ErrorLogFileName;
i get the following error:
Unable to cast object of type 'A.App' to type 'B.App'.
i also tried the following:
filename = ((B.App)Application.Current).ErrorLogFileName;
but still the same error...
the definition in B.App is:
private string _errorLogFileName = "error log.xml";
public string ErrorLogFileName
{
get { return _errorLogFileName; }
}
please assist...
Looks like you need to do:
filename = ((A.App)Application.Current).ErrorLogFileName;
The error is saying the type is A.App, yet in both cases you are trying to cast to B.App.
There can only be one current application also.
Application.Current refers to the current application. The only way to be allowed to cast the current App to another App-type is when the other App-type is a base class of the current App-type.
Are A.App and B.App siblings or is B.App a base class of A.App?
If you don't want B to have a reference to A (or can't as you want A to reference B and that would cause a circular reference), then you need a common type defined in a third assembly that both A and B reference. In our implementation we tend to have a ConfigurationData type that is in a separate project referenced by both Wpf projects, e.g.
public static class ConfigurationData
{
private static string _errorLogFileName = "error log.xml";
public string ErrorLogFileName
{
get { return _errorLogFileName; }
}
}
Another approach would be to define an Interface for your ErrorLogFileName property in a 3rd assembly that both A and B reference, and then implement that interface on your Wpf Application class - A and B would then both be able to cast to that type. If you wanted your A project to set the values on that at runtime, you could make the ErrorLogFileName a read-write property instead and initialize it in your application startup.
I personally prefer using a separate ConfigurationData type from the Wpf app object for this kind of stuff (ErrorLogFileName etc.) as it can then also be used for code that might execute in a unit test and therefore might not be running under a Wpf application - it also avoids having to do casts all over the place (ConfigurationData.ErrorLogFileName instead of ((IAppConfigurationData)Application.Current).ErrorLogFileName.
BTW, if you have an Application object in both assemblies it sounds like you might have both assemblies configured to build as Output type: Windows Application in your project properties. You should only really have one assembly that is configured as the Windows Application and the rest should be Class Library to avoid confusing numbers of Application classes being generated - only the one in the main EXE (and it's related resources) will get created at runtime.
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.
I've got a CustomersModule.cs with the following Initialize() method:
public void Initialize()
{
container.RegisterType<ICustomersRepository, CustomersRepository>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
CustomersPresenter customersPresenter = this.container.Resolve<CustomersPresenter>();
}
The class I resolve from the container looks like this:
class CustomersPresenter
{
private CustomersView view;
private ICustomersRepository customersRespository;
public CustomersPresenter(CustomersView view,
ICustomersRepository customersRepository,
TestWhatever testWhatever)
{
this.view = view;
this.customersRespository = customersRepository;
}
}
The TestWhatever class is just a dummy class I created:
public class TestWhatever
{
public string Title { get; set; }
public TestWhatever()
{
Title = "this is the title";
}
}
Yet the container happily resolves CustomersPresenter even though I never registered it, and also the container somehow finds TestWhatever, instantiates it, and injects it into CustomersPresenter.
I was quite surprised to realize this since I couldn't find anywhere in the Prism documentation which explicitly stated that the container was so automatic.
So this is great, but it what else is the container doing that I don't know about i.e. what else can it do that I don't know about? For example, can I inject classes from other modules and if the modules happen to be loaded the container will inject them, and if not, it will inject a null?
There is nothing magical going on. You are specifying concrete types, so naturally they are resolvable, because if we have the Type object, we can call a constructor on it.
class Fred { };
Fred f1 = new Fred();
Type t = typeof(Fred);
Fred f2 = (Fred)t.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes).Invoke(null);
The last line above is effectively what happens, the type t having been found by using typeof on the type parameter you give to Resolve.
If the type cannot be constructed by new (because it's in some unknown separate codebase) then you wouldn't be able to give it as a type parameter to Resolve.
In the second case, it is constructor injection, but it's still a known concrete constructable type. Via reflection, the Unity framework can get an array of all the Types of the parameters to the constructor. The type TestWhatever is constructable, so there is no ambiguity or difficulty over what to construct.
As to your concern about separate modules (assemblies), if you move TestWhatever to another assembly, that will not change the lines of code you've written; it will just mean that you have to add a reference to the other assembly to get this one to build. And then TestWhatever is still an unambiguously refeferenced constructable type, so it can be constructed by Unity.
In other words, if you can refer to the type in code, you can get a Type object, and so at runtime it will be directly constructable.
Response to comment:
If you delete the class TestWhatever, you will get a compile-time error, because you refer to that type in your code. So it won't be possible to get a runtime by doing that.
The decoupling is still in effect in this arrangement, because you could register a specific instance of TestWhatever, so every call to Resolve<TestWhatever>() will get the same instance, rather than constructing a new one.
The reason this works is because Unity is designed for it. When you Resolve with a concrete type, Unity looks to see if it can resolve from the container. If it cannot, then it just goes and instantiates the type resolving it's dependencies. It's really quite simple.