The Hazelcast documentation on their Portable serialization mechanism says that you are not forced to use a no-arg constructor.
https://hazelcast.org/mastering-hazelcast/#serialization-start
But their example code shows fields being set directly.
#Override
public void readPortable(PortableReader reader) throws IOException {
System.out.println("Deserialize");
this.name = reader.readUTF("name");
}
and the factory used to create instances of the class being deserialized is using a no-arg constructor.
#Override
public Portable create(int classId) {
switch (classId) {
case PERSON_CLASS_ID:
return new Person();
}
return null;
}
Am I right in assuming that you are not forced to use a no-arg constructor but you can't use it to set field values when deserializing? How would you handle enforcing invariants such as never-null fields and how would you deserialize a subclass without making the fields in the superclass protected?
While deserializing you can't maintain invariants since the object is being reconstructed; so some fields are just not set. There is no point resisting this.
And you are not forced to have a no-arg constructor. As long as the factory can create an instance, HZ doesn't care how you create it.
Related
I want to avoid boiler plate code for creating a list of SelectItems to map my entities/dtos between view and model, so I used this snippet of a generic object converter:
#FacesConverter(value = "objectConverter")
public class ObjectConverter implements Converter {
private static Map<Object, String> entities = new WeakHashMap<Object, String>();
#Override
public String getAsString(FacesContext context, UIComponent component, Object entity) {
synchronized (entities) {
if (!entities.containsKey(entity)) {
String uuid = UUID.randomUUID().toString();
entities.put(entity, uuid);
return uuid;
} else {
return entities.get(entity);
}
}
}
#Override
public Object getAsObject(FacesContext context, UIComponent component, String uuid) {
for (Entry<Object, String> entry : entities.entrySet()) {
if (entry.getValue().equals(uuid)) {
return entry.getKey();
}
}
return null;
}
}
There are already many answers to similliar questions, but I want a vanilla solution (without *faces). The following points still leave me uncertain about the quality of my snippet:
If it was that easy, why isn't there a generic object converter build into JSF?
Why are so many people still using SelectItems? Isn't there more flexibility by using the generic approach? E.g. #{dto.label} can be quickly changed into #{dto.otherLabel}.
Given the scope is just to map between view and model, is there any major downside of the generic approach?
This approach is hacky and memory inefficient.
It's "okay" in a small application, but definitely not in a large application with tens or hundreds of thousands of potential entities around which could be referenced in a f:selectItems. Moreover, such a large application has generally a second level entity cache. The WeakHashMap becomes then useless and is only effective when an entity is physically removed from the underlying datastore (and thus also from second level entity cache).
It has certainly a "fun" factor, but I'd really not recommend using it in "heavy production".
If you don't want to use an existing solution from an utility library like OmniFaces SelectItemsConverter as you already found, which is basically completely stateless and doesn't use any DAO/Service call, then your best bet is to abstract all your entities with a common base interface/class and hook the converter on that instead. This only still requires a DAO/Service call. This has been fleshed out in detail in this Q&A: Implement converters for entities with Java Generics.
I wanted to implement the factory pattern with CDI. Here we have the business case example:
A client provides a string representing a type. Depending on this type the factory returns an implementation of an interface.
I know that there are a lot of questions flying around concerning factory pattern and CDI. The difference I have here is that I resolve the implementation returned by the factory based on a runtime parameter.
I was thinking of using a producer method but then I can not think of how to inject the resolved implementation into the bean where the implementation is needed since this is a runtime parameter which is not necessarily known at contruction time.
So I thought of the pretty straight forward way of using the Instance class.
Here is the basic implementation :
// the interface. Instances of this class are returned from the factory
public interface Product {
}
// one implementation may be returned by the factory
#ProductType("default")
public class DefaultProduct implements Product {
}
// another implementation may be returned by the factory
#ProductType("myProduct")
public class MyProduct implements Product {
}
// the qualifier annotation
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface ProductType {
String value();
}
// the Annotation implementation to select
// the correct implementation in the factory
public class ProductTypeLiteral extends AnnotationLiteral<ProductType>
implements ProductType {
private String type;
public ProductTypeLiteral(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
#Override
public String value() {
return type;
}
}
// the factory itself. It is annotated with #Singleton because the
// factory is only needed once
#Singleton
public class Factory {
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<Product> products;
public Product getProduct(String type) {
ProductTypeLiteral literal = new ProductTypeLiteral(type);
Instance<Product> typeProducts = products.select(literal);
return typeProducts.get();
}
}
In my opinion using Instance is very sophisticated.
But this has one major drawback:
Everytime you cal the Instance.get() method you retrieve a new Instance of Product. This may be fine but the Instance instance keeps a reference of the returned instance internally. So as long as the Factory lives and each time the Instance.get() is called the more instances of Product will exist in the memory and never get garbage collected because a reference is still hold in Instance.
I thought of not making the Factory a singleton but that just shifts the problem and does not solve it. And of course it is against the factory pattern.
Another solution I tried was to iterate through the Instance instead of selecting an implementation with the help of the annotation:
#Singleton
public class Factory {
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<Product> products;
public Product getProduct(String type) {
Product product = null;
for(Product eachProduct : products) {
ProductType productType = eachProduct.getClass().
getAnnotation(ProductType.class)
if(productType.value().equals(type) {
product = eachProduct;
break;
}
}
return product;
}
}
Basically this is working. Now each time depending on the given type I retrieve the same instance of Product. That way the memory is not consumed.
But I don't like it to iterate over a collection when I have the possibility to resolve the correct implementations more elegantly.
Do you have any ideas which may solve the problem? Otherwise I may have to keep the iteration solution.
Herein lies your problem. Instance keeps reference to instances you obtain from it using get() because it is responsible for reclaiming them when they go out of scope (i.e. when the injected Instance goes out of scope. But because you made your factory a singleton, it will never go out of scope. So, make your factory a short-lived scope, like #RequestScoped or even #Dependent, that way all the returned instances will be reclaimed properly.
Maybe it can help you:
Create qualifiers:
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface MyProduct{
}
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface DefaultProduct{
}
In Factory class:
#Singleton
public class Factory {
public Product getProduct(#MyProduct MyProduct product, #DefaultProduct DefaultProduct defaultProduct) {
//What you wanna do
}
}
The class javax.security.auth.x500.X500Principal is final and (of course) not annotated with JAXB annotations? So how can I marshal it as part of a larger object graph? I would like to substitute it with the value of it's name property.
Edit
The solution is straightforward:
final class X500PrincipalXmlAdapter
extends XmlAdapter<String, X500Principal> {
#Override public X500Principal unmarshal(String name) {
return new X500Principal(name);
}
#Override public String marshal(X500Principal principal) {
return principal.getName();
}
}
Actually, I wonder why JAXB lets me get away with a non-public XMLAdapter class, but I certainly prefer it that way.
You could use an XmlAdapter for this use case. The XmlAdapter is used to convert an unmappable object into a mappable one. The XmlAdapter is configured on a field/property using the #XmlJavaTypeAdapter annotation.
Rather than using Bean model objects, my data model is built on Key-Value pairs in a HashMap container.
Does anyone have an example of the GXT's Grid ValueProvider and PropertyAccess that will work with a underlying Map?
It doesn't have one built in, but it is easy to build your own. Check out this blog post for a similar way of thinking, especially the ValueProvider section: http://www.sencha.com/blog/building-gxt-charts
The purpose of a ValueProvider is to be a simple reflection-like mechanism to read and write values in some object. The purpose of PropertyAccess<T> then is to autogenerate some of these value/modelkey/label provider instances based on getters and setters as are found on Java Beans, a very common use case. It doesn't have much more complexity than that, it is just a way to simply ask the compiler to do some very easy boilerplate code for you.
As that blog post shows, you can very easily build a ValueProvider just by implementing the interface. Here's a quick example of how you could make one that reads a Map<String, Object>. When you create each instance, you tell it which key are you working off of, and the type of data it should find when it reads out that value:
public class MapValueProvider<T> implements
ValueProvider<Map<String, Object>, T> {
private final String key;
public MapValueProvider(String key) {
this.key = key;
}
public T getValue(Map<String, Object> object) {
return (T) object.get(key);
}
public void setValue(Map<String, Object> object, T value) {
object.put(key, value);
}
public String getPath() {
return key;
}
}
You then build one of these for each key you want to read out, and can pass it along to ColumnConfig instances or whatever else might be expecting them.
The main point though is that ValueProvider is just an interface, and can be implemented any way you like.
Is it possible to use AutoMapper with Immutable types?
For example my Domain type is immutable and I want to map my view type to this.
I believe it is not but just want this confirmed.
Also as it is best practice to have your domain types immutable, what is the best practice when mapping your view types to domain types?
I typically do the mapping from view types to domain types by hand, as I'll typically be working through a more complex interface, using methods and so on. If you use AutoMapper to go from view to domain, you're now locked in to an anemic domain model, whether you've intentionally decided to or not.
Suppose that you really did want an immutable property on your Domain type, say Id. Your domain type might look something like this:
public class DomainType
{
public DomainType(int id)
{
Id = id;
}
public int Id { get; }
// other mutable properties
// ...
}
Then you can use ConstructUsing using a public constructor of your choice, such as:
CreateMap<ViewType, DomainType>()
.ConstructUsing(vt => new DomainType(vt.Id));
Then map all the mutable properties in the normal way
AutoMapper relies on property setters to do its work, so if you have read-only properties, AutoMapper won't be of much use.
You could override the mapping behaviour and, for example, configure it to invoke a specific constructor, but that basically defeats the purpose of AutoMapper because then you are doing the mapping manually, and you've only succeeded in adding a clumsy extra step in the process.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that your domain model is immutable. How do you update it? Is the entire application read-only? And if so, why would you ever need to map to your domain model as opposed to from? An immutable domain model sounds... pretty useless.
P.S. I'm assuming that you mean this AutoMapper and not the auto-mapping feature in Fluent NHibernate or even some other totally different thing. If that's wrong then you should be more specific and add tags for your platform/language.
We have immutable objects using the builder pattern. Mapping them takes a little more boilerplate code, but it is possible
// ViewModel
public class CarModel : IVehicleModel
{
private CarModel (Builder builder)
{
LicensePlate = builder.LicensePlate;
}
public string LicensePlate { get; }
//
public Builder
{
public string LicensePlate { get; set; }
}
}
// Model
public class CarViewModel : IVehicleViewModel
{
private CarViewModel (Builder builder)
{
LicensePlate = builder.LicensePlate ;
}
public ILicensePlate LicensePlate { get; }
//
public Builder
{
public ILicensePlate LicensePlate { get; set; }
}
}
Our AutoMapper Profiles have three mappings registered:
CreateMap<IVehicleModel, CarViewModel.Builder>();
CreateMap<CarViewModel.Builder, IVehicleViewModel>().ConvertUsing(x => x.Build());
CreateMap<IVehicleModel, IVehicleViewModel>().ConvertUsing<VehicleModelTypeConverter>();
The VehicleModelTypeConverter then defines a two stage conversion:
public IVehicleViewModel Convert(IVehicleModel source, IVehicleViewModel destination,
ResolutionContext context)
{
var builder = context.Mapper.Map<CarViewModel.Builder>(source);
var model = context.Mapper.Map<IVehicleViewModel>(builder);
return model;
}
(An implementation of ITypeListConverter<string, ILicensePlate> carries out that mapping).
Usage in our system is as normal:
var result = _mapper<IVehicleViewModel>(_carModel);
This is using AutoMapper v7.0.1
You can use Automapper with classes or records that have properties init only setters. This is new in C# 9.0.
Automapper can set the properties at object creation because the properties have init only setters, but after Automapper has mapped them, they are locked in (immutable).
https://www.tsunamisolutions.com/blog/c-90-records-and-dtos-a-match-made-in-redmond