I need to perform additional modifying of all Strings, is it possible to make a ValueConverter with a Target Type of String, or if not, in what other way can I do it?
class StringValueConverter implements ValueConverter {
#Override
boolean canConvert(Object value) {
value instanceof String
}
#Override
Object convert(Object value) {
//modifying value
}
#Override
Class<?> getTargetType() {
return String
}
}
I need to do it before binding
In Groovy yes you can. There are various ways:
Using Extension Module is one of them.
Another way would be to use runtime metaprogramming, for example:
String.metaClass.flip = {
delegate.reverse()
}
assert "Hello".flip() == "olleH"
Above is a contrived example of adding methods to metaClass of String, but a convert method as in your example can fit in as well.
However, the extension module is what can be robust in your case if you are looking for adding sanity by canConvert which would not be needed for runtime metaClass methods as they are only available for String class.
Related
Basically, I want to override a parent class with different arguments. For example:
class Hold<T> {
public var value:T;
public function new(value:T) {
set(value);
}
public function set(value:T) {
this.value = value;
}
}
Then override that class, something like:
class HoldMore extends Hold<T> {
public var value2:T;
public function new(value:T, value2:T) {
super(value);
set(value, value2);
}
override public function set(value:T, value2:T) {
this.value = value;
this.value2 = value2;
}
}
Obviously this will return an error, Field set overloads parent class with different or incomplete type. Is there a way around this? I tried using a public dynamic function, and then setting set in the new() function, but that gave a very similar error. Any thoughts?
This is just a complement to #stroncium's answer, which is totally correct.
Here is an example how it could look like:
class Hold<T> {
public var value:T;
public function new(value:T) {
set(value);
}
public function set(value:T) {
this.value = value;
}
}
class HoldMore<T> extends Hold<T> {
public var value2:T;
public function new(value:T, value2:T) {
super(value);
setBoth(value, value2);
}
// you cannot override "set" with a different signature
public function setBoth(value:T, value2:T) {
this.value = value;
this.value2 = value2;
}
}
alternatively, you could use an array as parameter or a dynamic object holding multiple values in order to "set" them using the same method, but you loose some of the compiler's type checking.
If you wrote the base class you could add an optional argument to it, this would be a workaround though, not directly what you want to do.
In the current state it totally won't work. There is not only 1 problem, but few of them:
Type T is meaningless in context of this new class, you should either use some concrete type or template this class over T.
You can not change the number of arguments of function when overriding it. However you can add another function(with a different name) to accept 2 arguments and do what you want (which is the way you would use in most languages, by the way).
I don't really understand how you see a contravariance problem there. The actual problem is that haxe doesn't support function overload. (It actually does, the function signature is name + full type, but that's not what you would want to write nor support, and is mostly used for js/java externs.)
Unfortunately the language doesn't allow it.
I need to be able to call a method and pass in an object of an unknown type
but then have the correct overload called. I also need a default implementation that accepts
object as its parameter type. What I'm seeing is that the default overload is the only one that ever gets used.
Here's the gist of what I'm trying to do:
class Formatter
{
private object Value;
public Formatter(object val){
Value = val;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Format(Value);
}
private string Format(object value)
{
return value.ToString();
}
private string Format(DateTime value)
{
return value.ToString("yyyyMMdd");
}
}
Ok, so far so good. Now I want to be able to do this:
public static class FancyStringBuilder()
{
public static string BuildTheString()
{
var stringFormatter = new Formatter("hello world");
var dateFormatter = new Formatter(DateTime.Now);
return String.Format("{0} {1}", stringFormatter, dateFormatter);
}
}
The result of FancyStringBuilder.BuildTheString() is "hello world 2012-12-21 00:00:00.000", when I expected "hello world 20121221"
The problem is that the overload that accepts a DateTime is not being called, instead defaulting to the overload which accepts an object. How can I call the proper method without resorting to a messy switch statement?
In Formatter.ToString(), the override Formatter.Format(object) is always called. This is because the overload resolution happens at compile-time, not run-time. At compile-time, the only thing known about Value is that it's an object.
If you really want to distinguish incoming types, you'll need to do so in Formatter's constructor. In this case, rather than hanging on to the object, you could just call ToString() immediately and only store the formatted result:
class Formatter
{
string formattedValue;
public Formatter(object value)
{
formattedValue = value.ToString();
}
public Formatter(DateTime value)
{
formattedValue = value.ToString("yyyyMMdd");
}
public string ToString()
{
return formattedValue;
}
}
Note that this does assume that your object isn't changing between the time you create the Formatter object and the time Formatter.ToString() is called, or at the very least that it's okay to take a snapshot of the string representation at the time the Formatter is created.
This also assumes that you know the incoming types at compile-time. If you want a truly run-time-only solution, you'll have to use the "is" operator or a typeof() comparison.
If your goal is just to provide custom ToString() formatting based on the incoming type, I'd probably do it using a list that maps from types to format strings:
static class Formatter
{
private static List<Tuple<Type, string>> Formats;
static Formatter()
{
Formats = new List<Tuple<Type, string>>();
// Add formats from most-specific to least-specific type.
// The format string from the first type found that matches
// the incoming object (see Format()) will be used.
AddMapping(typeof(DateTime), "yyyyMMdd");
// AddMapping(typeof(...), "...");
}
private static void AddMapping(Type type, string format)
{
Formats.Add(new Tuple<Type, string>(type, format));
}
public static string Format(object value)
{
foreach (var t in Formats)
{
// If we find a type that 'value' can be assigned to
// (either the same type, a base type, or an interface),
// consider it a match, and use the format string.
if (t.Item1.IsAssignableFrom(value.GetType()))
{
return string.Format(t.Item2, value);
}
}
// If we didn't find anything, use the default ToString()...
return value.ToString();
}
}
With that, calling code then looks like:
Console.WriteLine(
"{0} {1}",
Formatter.Format(DateTime.Now),
Formatter.Format("banana"));
I think this is because the class constructor takes an object as parameter, and then assign that object to variable Value which is also an object. There for calling Format(object) since Value is of type object
Try this
public override string ToString()
{
if(Value is DateTime)
return Format(Convert.ToDateTime(Value)); //this should call the right method
return Format(Value); //works for other non-custom-format types e.g. String
}
I was developing the below class..
public class Test1
{
public void method(Object o)
{
System.out.println("Object Verion");
}
public void method(String s)
{
System.out.println("String Version");
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
Test1 question = new Test1();
//question.method(question);
question.method(null);
}
}
Now upon executing it invokes string version as output So please advise here string is treated as null and what should we pass to invoke the object version.Thanks in advance
All other things being equal, the most-specific method will be called. From the JLS:
15.12.2.5. Choosing the Most Specific Method
If more than one member method is both accessible and applicable to a
method invocation, it is necessary to choose one to provide the
descriptor for the run-time method dispatch. The Java programming
language uses the rule that the most specific method is chosen.
The informal intuition is that one method is more specific than
another if any invocation handled by the first method could be passed
on to the other one without a compile-time type error.
question.method(null) could mean either the String or Object overload, but since String is more specific (narrower) than Object, the String overload is the method that is called.
I have an input (JSF) that should be bound to a property in my bean. This property represents another bean and has an auxiliar method that checks if it's null (I use this method a lot).
The problem is that the binding is failing to get the proper getter and setter. Instead of reading the method that returns the bean, it reads the one that return a boolean value.
The property name is guest. The methods are:
getGuest;
setGuest;
isGuest (checks if guest is null).
JSF is trying to bind the object to isGuest and setGuest, instead of getGuest and setGuest.
I cannot rename isGuest to guestIsNull or something, because that would'nt make to much sense (see the class below).
Finally, my question is: how can I bind this property to the object without renaming my methods? Is it possible?
I also accept suggestions of a better method name (but the meaning must be the same).
Entity
#Entity
public class Passenger {
private Employee employee;
private Guest guest;
public Passenger() {
}
#Transient
public boolean isEmployee() {
return null != this.employee;
}
#Transient
public boolean isGuest() {
return null != this.guest;
}
#OneToOne
public Employee getEmployee() {
return this.employee;
}
public void setEmployee(Employee employee) {
this.employee = employee;
}
#OneToOne
public Guest getGuest() {
return this.guest;
}
public void setGuest(Guest guest) {
this.guest = guest;
}
}
JSF
<h:inputText value="#{passenger.employee}" />
<h:inputText value="#{passenger.guest}" />
Change the method name to isGuestNull.
The problem you're seeing is due to the fact that the EL lets you use getFoo or isFoo as the naming style for getter methods that return booleans.
No, that's not possible. You've to rename them.
Another way is to add a single getter returning an enum which covers all cases.
public enum Type {
GUEST, EMPLOYEE;
}
public Type getType() {
return guest != null ? Type.GUEST
: employee != null ? Type.EMPLOYEE
: null;
}
with
<h:something rendered="#{passenger.type == 'GUEST'}">
Binding to any property using any method is possible and quite easy if you create your custom ELResolver (apidocs). elresolvers are registered in faces config, and they are responsible, given an Object and a String defining a property, for determining the value and type of the given properties (and, as the need arises, to change it).
You could easily write your own ELResolver that would only work for your chosen, single type, and use (for example in a switch statement) the specific methods you need to write and read properties. And for other types it would delegate resolving up the resolver chain. It's really easy to do, much easier than it sounds.
But don't do it. The standard naming pattern of properties predates EL by many years. It is part of the JavaBeans™ standard - one of the very few undisputed standards in Javaland, working everywhere - from ant scripts, through spring configuration files to JSF. Seeing methods isPerson and getPerson in one class actually makes me fill uneasy, as it breaks something I always take for granted and can always count on.
If you like DDD and want to have your method's names pure, use an adapter. It's easy, fun, and gives a couple of additional lines, which is not something to sneer at if you get paid for the ammount of code produced:
public class MyNotReallyBean {
public String checkName() { ... }
public String lookUpLastName() { ... }
public String carefullyAskAboutAge() { ... }
public class BeanAdapter {
public String getName() { return checkName(); }
public String getLastName() { return lookUpLastName(); }
public String getAge() { return carefullyAskAboutAge(); }
}
private static BeanAdapter beanAdapter = new BeanAdapter();
private BeanAdapter getBeanAdapter(){ return beanAdapter; }
}
I have a function that returns objects of different types based on the parameter passed to this function.
Is it possible to add these different object types to a collection based on some identifier in C# 4.0?
Usually we do something like this
List or List
but i want one collection which can add object of any type.
Instead of just making a List<object> like other posters are recommending, you may want to define an interface eg IListableObject that contains a few methods that your objects need to implement. This will make any code using these objects much easier to write and will guard against unwanted objects getting into the collection down the line.
Yes, it is called object. Eg:
var objlist = new List<object>();
objlist.Add(1);
objlist.Add(true);
objlist.Add("hello");
You could use object[], List<object>, ArrayList, IEnumerable, ... but if those types have a common base type it would be better to stick to a strongly typed collection.
Really your collection should be as specific as you can make it. When you say
objects of different types
Do these objects have anything in common? Do they implement a common interface?
If so you you can specialise the list on that interface List<IMyInterface>
Otherwise List<object> will do what you want.
Update
No, not really.
I'm sorry but I'm going to question your design.
If you have a collection of different objects, how do you decide how to use one of the objects?
You're going to have a large switch statement switching on the type of the object, then you cast to a specific object and use it.
You also have have a similar switch statement in your factory method that creates the object.
One of the benefits of Object Orientation is that if you design your objects correctly then you don't need to do these large "If it's this object do this.Method(), if it's that object do that.OtherMethod()".
Can I ask, why are you putting different objects into the same collection? What's the benefit to you?
If you want a collection which can add objects of any type then List<object> is the most appropriate type.
Collections in earlier versions of C# (not generics) can contain any kind of objects. If they're value type, they will be boxed into object.
When you need to use them, you can just cast it to the original type.
You may use List<Type> to hold the type information, if that's what you want. And Type[], Hashtable, etc. are also fine. You can use typeof operator to get the type or use Object.GetType().
Also check out Dynamic type.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264736.aspx
It will basically do the same thing.
My Suggestion:
public class ParamValue
{
object value = null;
public ParamValue(object val)
{
value = val;
}
public string AsString()
{
return value.ToString();
}
public int AsInt()
{
return int.Parse(value.ToString());
}
public int? AsNullableInt()
{
int n;
if (int.TryParse(value.ToString(), out n))
{
return n;
}
return null;
}
public bool AsBool()
{
return bool.Parse(value.ToString());
}
public bool? AsNullableBool()
{
bool b;
if (bool.TryParse(value.ToString(), out b))
{
return b;
}
return null;
}
}
public class Params
{
Dictionary<string, object> paramCol = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public void Add(string paramName, object value)
{
paramCol.Add(paramName, value);
}
public ParamValue this[string paramName]
{
get
{
object v;
if (paramCol.TryGetValue(paramName, out v))
{
return new ParamValue(v);
}
return null;
}
}
}
Use param class as a collectio to your values, you can convert the return to every type you want.
You could use a Tuple of Genric Types
public Tuple<T, T> MySuperMethod()
{
int number = 1;
string text = "Batman";
return new Tuple<int, string>(number, text);
}
The .NET Framework directly supports tuples with one to seven
elements. In addition, you can create tuples of eight or more elements
by nesting tuple objects in the Rest property of a Tuple object.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.tuple(v=vs.100).aspx