It would be real handy if one could listen to class reloads in jRebel to reload for instance static variables when one needs to, for instance in development mode.
Is this possible?
Depends on your exact requirements. If it is enough for you to do something with the single static class that is reloaded, then you can implement the following method in that class:
public static void __rebelReload(){
// do whatever stuff you want with the static state
}
After the class is reloaded, JRebel will call this method.
However, if the static state is scattered across the application, you may want to implement a custom plugin, which is just a bit more complicated to do.
Related
I am creating a winRt app. In which I am having a Home.xaml page which having a another page called Market.xaml. So for snapped mode the same code is repeated.
Now my itemListView (used for snapped) and itemGridView (for full view) both have this page (Market)
<views:Market x:Name="viewMarket"/>
And the constructor of this page is called twice which I not want.
So do I use some flag kind of thing or some better approach is there.
Thanks
So, let's talk about this:
XAML is basically a varying syntax to C#. So, when XAML references a control like your views:Market with <Views:Market />, you are actually putting in something like new Views.Market() in both places. Basically, invoking the class twice. Should the constructor not fire twice, the time-space continuum would split in half. Dogs and cats living together, the whole 9 yards.
But, more fundamental here, what is the purpose of the constructor in C#, or in a XAML class? Is to do expensive things that you would not want to repeat? No. The reason for this is because the completion of the constructor is necessary before the UI thread is released and allowed to render the control. The resulting effect is a UI hang.
Moreover, the C# constructor is a synchronous method. It cannot properly invoke or hold asynchronous operations. This means long-running or expensive tasks that should be invoked immediately, should not be invoked in the constructor because it would also require them to be synchronous and UI-blocking. It is because of these last two points I suspect your constructor is being misused.
The solution is in the XAML framework. The XAML Page pipeline includes the constructor (since it is a C# class and they all have it) but it also includes a Loaded event. In many cases, the hard work necessary to fill page controls is in the Loaded handler. This allows the page to render properly, then starts the long-running action that will ultimately and asynchronously update control content.
In WinRT, the Page pipeline also includes an OnNavigatedTo() virtual method in the base that you can override to the same effect. In the override you can include the hard work of talking to a service, deserializing from a file, or whatever you need to make your UI work. Both the Loaded event and the override can be asynchronous, and neither prevent rendering by freezing the constructor.
But, there's another thing to consider since we're in C# and that the rather common pattern called singleton that allows for us to reference a type in two different contexts but without creating a brand new class. This is accomplished by making the class constructor private, but exposing a public property usually called Instance that returns a single, shared instances in some static place.
That might solve your problem already. Then again, none of that is probably what you need. Assuming you already know all that, the quick answer is you can't prevent a constructor because a constructor is necessary to create a new instantiation of any class, including a XAML view. Instead, whatever you are trying to prevent being double might need to be a combination of the discussions above. An offloaded method, and a static reference to prevent duplicate efforts.
Something like this:
public class Market : UserControl
{
public Market()
{
Loaded += Market_Loaded;
}
static bool AlreadyLoaded = false;
void Market_Loaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
if (AlreadyLoaded)
return;
AlreadyLoaded = true;
// TODO: your work
}
}
But that might not do it for you because the static variable is scoped too large. Instead, you can control if it does the big operation with a dependency property you add to your control. With a boolean dependency property set to false, the second control knows not to do something. With it set to true, the first knows to go ahead. And, so on. This prevents all future use of the view or user control in your app from thinking it should not run because of the static property in the above solution. Then again, that might be perfect.
Best of luck!
I need to implement a login/logout using MVVMCross, iOS only to start. After the user logs in, I want to close the view and make the "real" first view the root controller. For logout, I want to do the same in reverse. Whenever the LoginViewModel is requested, clear the root and replace it.
This Remove ViewController from stack indicates there is a ClearTop parameter, but it looks like it is gone in v3?
I then found this What is the best way to handle GoBack for the different MvvmCross (v3) platforms and I implemented this Presenter:
public override void Close(IMvxViewModel toClose)
{
if (toClose is LoginViewModel)
{
ClearBackStack();
Show(new MvxViewModelRequest() { ViewModelType = typeof(FirstViewModel)});
return;
}
base.Close(toClose);
}
public override void Show(MvxViewModelRequest request)
{
if (request.ViewModelType == typeof (LoginViewModel))
{
ClearBackStack();
}
base.Show(request);
}
Is this the correct way to handle this? Is there an easier mechanism (pre-v3 like)? Should I be overriding ChangePresentation instead?
Also, is there a mechanism to call ShowViewModel from a View? Do I need to resolve the IMvxViewDispatcher or is there a more straight forward method?
Yes, if you want to do custom presentation techniques then the easiest way is to implement your own view presenter.
For an introduction and some links on this, see How can I implement SplitView in another view in MvvmCross?
You are free to write code directly in your views, including navigation logic using resolved IoC objects. However, mvvmCross tries to encourage you to put this logic in the viewmodels - especially so that the 'logic' is more easily shared between platforms.
I am developing webapp where my MVC controller is JSF 2.1. I have several methods that are based on
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance()
I use this to
put/retrieve values from Flash scope
add messages on view
get request params map
examples:
public void addInfoMessage(String title, String description){
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().addMessage(null, new FacesMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_INFO,title, description));
}
and
public void putFlashMessage(String code, String value){
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getFlash().put(code, value);
}
etc.
I'm just wondering where is proper place to put this methods if I use this on every single managed bean? I consider two options:
a) create class "JSFUtils", where all method are public and static
b) create super class "ManagedBean" with no declared scope and no declared #ManagedBean annotation, but with these public methods. Every managed bean should be child of these class so it will have inherited these methods.
An utility class is the recommended approach. Instead of reinventing your own, you can use an existing JSF utility library, such as OmniFaces which has Faces and Messages utility classes for the purpose.
String foo = Faces.getRequestParameter("foo");
Messages.create(summary).detail(detail).add();
Messages.addGlobalInfo(summary); // Without detail.
Faces.setFlashAttribute(key, value);
You can indeed also abstract it away as a "super bean", but this is not reusable and you would keep repeating yourself in every JSF project. Also, a class can extend from only one class. So if your bean happen to need to extend from another super class, then you're lost.
I would recommend a utility class for the purpose simply because you allow the flexibility to extend other useful classes, such as those that have some common logic that you'd like to share across other beans.
Having said that, a JSFUtils class can grow quite cluttered with time with many many methods and can become very unmanageable. It would be better to categorize the util methods and put them in separate static utility classes.
for a my current project I would like to overide the context.getUser() method to return a custom pojo which extends the default object returned?
The reason I would like to do is so that I dont have to use the sessionScope technique of saving person specific data and just can call context.getUser() instead (which checks which user is logged on (or anonymous) and retrieves all data needed without.
I would not override context.getUser() - you don't know what else that may require. Have you looked at the userBean and or peopleBean from the extension library? You could use that to get any information you need, then if you need more, or want to create a custom class that extends those beans, install it as a scoped bean in your application, and then use it as the base for your own getUser().
Hi I have a question about best practices vs safe programming in building a JSF Web Applicaiton.
I have employee.xhtml page having backing Bean - EmployeeBean. All the variables that I declare in the backing bean are non static and have getter and setter methods. For example:
ArrayList <Employee> alEmployees = new ArrayList<Employee>();
int userId;
The constructor of the BackingBean loads the employees. I acheive this by calling a static method in delegate.
userId = //some value.
alEmployees = EmployeeDelegate.loadEmployees(userId);
The Delegate method calls a static method in DAO Class.
Will the static methods cause any data concurrency issues when n users are using the application at same time? I mean userId 56 seeing userId 75 list when both are using the application same time?
Is it really advisable to have static methods in Delegate and DAO layer?
Please let me know if I was not clear.
Thanks
If the EmployeeDelegate does not hold any class variables which is sensitive to changes caused by method calls and/or has influence on how methods behave, then it's safe to do so.
You however have another major problem with this approach. The delegate should be an interface so that you can easily substitute it with a different implementation. This approach suggests that the delegate is not an interface at all (since it can impossibly have static methods).