I am trying to write a module in F#, making it easier working with Excel, by extracting rows, columns, etc. along with type casting and so on. One of the first things I wanted to do, was to extend various classes/types to implement the IDisposable interface. I tried to write something like the following
type Excel.ApplicationClass with
interface IDisposable with
member this.Dispose() =
this.excel.Quit()
Marshal.ReleaseComObject(this.excel) |> ignore
What I wasn't aware of, was that I would get the following error "All implemented interfaces should be declared on the initial declaration of the type".
My question is the following: Since I am not allow to extend a type with an interface - what else could I do?
If you inherit from the base class it can work, like this
type myAppClass() =
inherit Excel.ApplicationClass() //may not be correct signature - you need to match the base constructor
interface IDisposable with
member this.Dispose() =
//function body
Related
It is a Sequence Diagram HowTo question, not a HowTo code.
I am using Visio 2010 and developing >> reverse engineering from Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012 / X++. Yes people its all about how to map static on UML.
My class is instantiated from FORM using at its void static main(). This calls another static method, say construct() which returns an instance of the same class.
I want to show the class (in static methods) and the resulting object separately some like the meta class runs (self msgs) and finally produces the class object which finally takes over. But how will a self msg call return a value ? How do I connect it with the resulting object of the class ? I hope I make enough sense to make you guys understand.
Note, the class is not a static class, but it has a static constructor.
If you want to depict a call to constructor (i.e. static operation that is responsible for creating an object and (usually) returning it as a reply) then you have to use a createMessage construct i.e. a dashed line with an open arrow and the word create on it. While this is not directly stated in specification, usually in such case the arrow points on the lifeline box (rectangle) rather than a line itself (however I've seen information that both notations are correct).
Note that in this case the logic of constructor is hidden (encapsulated) which is a good idea in general.
You can find more details in UML specification in section 17.4, especially 17.4.4.1 and an example in section 17.6.5 on Figure 17.14.
If you want to use a static operation other than constructor and call it without a use of class instance you have to model class as object (after all class is an object itself at least on analytical level). Note that the type of message can be either synchronous or asynchronous depending on your needs.
With this approach you can provide details on how the class handles this function (i.e. what other calls does it make).
For more details see "Applied UML and Patterns" by Craig Larman, section 15.4, Figure 15.20. Note however that Larman suggest a use of <<metaclass>> stereotype. Yet the called object is a class (metaclass is a class whose instance is class so this is not our case) so the stereotype should be <<class>>.
I have a library of domain objects which need to be used in the project, however we've found a couple of the classes haven't got an equals or hashCode method implemented.
I'm looking for the simplest (and Grooviest) way to add those methods. Obviously I could create a subclass which only adds the methods, but this would be confusing for developers used to the library and would mean we'd have to refactor existing code.
It is not possible to get the source changed (currently).
If I could edit the class I would just use the #EqualsAndHashCode annotation to carry out an AST transformation (at compile time?), but I can't find a way to instruct the compiler to carry out the transformation on a class which I can't directly annotate.
I'm currently trying to work up an example using the ExpandoMetaClass, so I'd do something like:
MySuperClass.metaClass.hashCode = { ->
// Add dynamic hashCode calculation bits here
}
MySuperClass.metaClass.equals = { ->
// Add dynamic hashCode calculation bits here
}
I don't really want to hand-code the hashCode/equals methods for each class, so I'm looking for something dyamic (like #EqualsAndHashCode) which will work with this.
Am I on the right track? Is there a groovier way?
AST Transforms are only applied at compile time, so you'll get no help from the likes of #EqualsAndHashCode. MetaClass hacks are going to be your only option. That said, there are more-elegant ways to impose MetaClass behavior.
Shameless Self Plug I did a talk about this kind of stuff last year at SpringOne 2GX: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/groovy-app-architecture
In short, you might find benefit in creating extensions (unless you're in Grails) - http://mrhaki.blogspot.com/2013/01/groovy-goodness-adding-extra-methods.html, or by explicitly adding mixins - http://groovy.codehaus.org/Runtime+mixins ... But in general, these are just cleaner ways to do the exact same thing you're already doing.
I would like to be able to use plain java-style implicit/explicit casting instead of asType overrides so that sources written in Java work properly. I've overridden asType on String similarly to the approach suggested in How to overload some Groovy Type conversion for avoiding try/catch of NumberFormatException? like:
oldAsType = String.metaClass.getMetaMethod("asType", [Class] as Class[])
String.metaClass.asType = {Class typ ->
if (Foo.class.isAssignableFrom(typ)) {
Foo.myCast(delegate)
} else {
oldAsType.invoke(delegate,typ)
}
}
I'd like all of these options to work:
// groovy
String barString
Foo foo = barString asType(Foo.class) // asType works but
Foo foo = barString // implicit cast fails
Foo foo = (Foo) barString // explicit cast fails
The latter two fail because groovy is using DefaultTypeTransformation.castToType, which doesn't attempt to invoke new Foo() unless the object to be cast is either one of a slew of special cases or is some sort of Collection type.
Note that the solution Can I override cast operator in Groovy? doesn't solve the issue because the code that is doing the casting is regular Java code that I cannot alter, at least not at the source code level. I'm hoping that there is either a secret hook into casting or a way to override the static castToType method (in a Java class, called by another Java class - which Can you use Groovy meta programming to override a private method on a Java class says is unsupported)... or some other clever approach I haven't thought of.
Edit: The question is about using Java-style casting syntax, essentially to use groovy facilities to add an autoboxing method. Groovy calls this mechanism "casting," for better or worse (see DefaultTypeTransformation.castToType as referenced above). In particular, I have replaced an enum with a resourced class and want to retain JSON serialization. Groovy's JSON package automatically un/marshals enum values of instance members to strings and I'm trying to make the replacement class serialize compatibly with a minimal changes to the source code.
Part of the problem here is you are confusing conversion with casting. Using the "as" operator is not the same thing as imposing a cast. They seem similar, but they serve separate purposes.
Foo foo = (Foo) barString
That doesn't say something like "create a Foo out of barString". That says "Declare a reference named foo, associate the static type Foo with that reference and then point that reference at the object on the heap that the reference barString currently points to.". Unlike languages like C++, Groovy and Java do not allow you to ever get in a situation where a reference points at an object that is of a type that is incompatible with the reference's type. If you ever got into a situation where a Foo reference was pointing to a String on the heap, that would represent a bug in the JVM. It cannot be done. You can come up with ways to create Foo objects out of String objects, but that isn't what the code above is about.
The answer appears to be "no". Absent a rewrite of the DefaultTypeTransformation.castToType to allow for this sort of metaprogramming, the implication is to use another implementation strategy or use a different language.
I am trying to save an Object which implements an Interface say IInterface.
private PersistentDictionary<string, IInterface> Object = new PersistentDictionary<string, IInterface>(Environment.CurrentDirectory + #"\Object");
Since many classes implement the same interface(all of which need to cached), for a generic approach I want to store an Object of type IInterface in the dictionary.
So that anywhere I can pull out that object type cast it as IInterface and use that object's internal implementation of methods etc..
But, as soon as the Esent cache is initialized it throws this error:
Not supported for SetColumn
Parameter name: TColumn
Actual value was IInterface.
I have tried to not use XmlSerializer to do the same but is unable to deserialize an Interface type.Also, [Serializable] attribute cannot be used on top of a Interface, so I am stuck.
I have also tried to make all the implementations(classes) of the Interface as [Serializable] as a dying attempt but to no use.
Does any one know a way out ? Thanks in advance !!!
The only reason that only structs are supported (as well as some basic immutable classes such as string) is that the PersistentDictionary is meant to be a drop-in replacement for Dictionary, SortedDictionary and other similar classes.
Suppose I have the following code:
class MyClass
{
int val;
}
.
.
.
var dict = new Dictionary<int,MyClass>();
var x = new MyClass();
x.val = 1;
dict.Add(0,x);
x.val = 2;
var y = dict[0];
Console.WriteLine(y.val);
The output in this case would be 2. But if I'd used the PersistentDictionary instead of the regular one, the output would be 1. The class was created with value 1, and then changed after it was added to the dictionary. Since a class is a reference type, when we retrieve the item from the dictionary, we will also have the changed data.
Since the PersistentDictionary writes the data to disk, it cannot really handle reference types this way. Serializing it, and writing it to disk is essentially the same as treating the object as a value type (an entire copy is made).
Because it's intended to be used instead of the standard dictionaries, and the fact that it cannot handle reference types with complete transparency, the developers instead opted to support only structs, because structs are value types already.
However, if you're aware of this limitation and promise to be careful not to fall into this trap, you can allow it to serialize classes quite easily. Just download the source code and compile your own version of the EsentCollections library. The only change you need to make to it is to change this line:
if (!(type.IsValueType && type.IsSerializable))
to this:
if (!type.IsSerializable)
This will allow classes to be written to the PersistentDictionary as well, provided that it's Serializable, and its members are Serializable as well. A huge benefit is that it will also allow you to store arrays in there this way. All you have to keep in mind is that it's not a real dictionary, therefore when you write an object to it, it will store a copy of the object. Therefore, updating any of your object's members after adding them to the PersistentDictionary will not update the copy in the dictionary automatically as well, you'd need to remember to update it manually.
PersistentDictionary can only store value-structs and a very limited subset of classes (string, Uri, IPAddress). Take a look at ColumnConverter.cs, at private static bool IsSerializable(Type type) for the full restrictions. You'd be hitting the typeinfo.IsValueType() restriction.
By the way, you can also try posting questions about PersistentDictionary at http://managedesent.codeplex.com/discussions .
-martin
I'm trying to figure out if this is possible.
I have a class, BaseGameEntity, from this I currently derive NormalDrop and OtherDrop each of which has an instance of a StateMachine< T > where T is NormalDrop and OtherDrop respectively.
From here relevant states can be called that apply to those kinds of drop.
What I want to do is put another layer in, the Drop class, which derives from BaseGameEntity which the other forms of drop then derive from.
Within Drop I want a StateMachine< T > where the "T" becomes NormalDrop or OtherDrop depending on what is using it as its base class.
Is this actually possible?
Yes, you can use the curiously recurring template pattern:
public class Drop<T> where T : Drop<T> { ... }
public class NormalDrop : Drop<NormalDrop> { ... }
public class OtherDrop : Drop<OtherDrop> { ... }
Then within the Drop base class T is always NormalDrop or OtherDrop.
This pattern generally isn't considered developer friendly as upon first glance it is confusing and there are probably better ways to structure code (though possibly not always). Eric Lippert wrote a very good blog post about this pattern and some of its shortcomings here.