I want to add a form into my application for generating rules considering the attributes of Liferay Users.
Do you know a function for getting a list of this attributes? (List of parameter names)
Example:
1. Address,
2. FullName,
3. AccountId,
4. Create Date,
5. Employee Numbre,
6. And so on.....
Do you know a function for getting the type of each parameter? (Due to check type errors)
Example:
1. Address -> String
2. FullName -> String
Thank you,
Oriol
AFAIK, there is not such a method. But even if it existed, it would not provide all the info you're going for, because some of it, is not an attribute of the User Class, or the corresponding 'user_' table in the LF database.
If you understand how ServiceBuilder Model works, you'll see that there's a complex Model running under the hood, and it's not working like attributes.
For example, there is no 'user.getAddress()'., Because, Address is a Complex Class, subclassing Contact, and keeps a FK to the User. If you want one of his addresses, You can only get all his addresses (User.getAddresses()), and iterate through them, check by ContantactType and e.g. get his "business address". Respectfully, you can't call 'user.setAddress(String)', not even a "user.addAddress(Address)". A working code would look much more like :
//update an existing Address
existingAddr.setStreet1(street);
existingAddr.setZip(zip);
existingAddr.setCity(city);
AddressLocalServiceUtil.updateAddress(existingAddr);
//then update the user, to store the changes.
UserLocalServiceUtil.updateUser(user);
The same goes for the birthday, the Phones, websites and facebook urls etc
For the rest of the 'Attributes' (names and Types), you should look here
You can get a User object by calling:
User u = userService.getUserById(0);
or check liferay docs for UserService
then you can use getters like:
u.getAddresses();
u.getBirthday();
u.getFullName();
you can get it from:
User user = UserLocalServiceUtil.getUser(userId);
user.getFullName();
user.getEmailAddress();
Related
I am making a class diagram for Class/Course Registration where students have to first register their course then select their class schedules (timetable)
I am unsure if I can have CourseRegistration and ClassRegistration table like that. The reason why I made it like that is, a student can register for a course but doesnt register to a class directly. so they can wait few days and then only register. So I have to make sure the course registration is saved in the database.
Thank you for all the help
PS: pls don't mind my attributes, they're just a draft.
Your business logic for the registration process (register both for a course and a corresponding class) is too complicated. Normally, one would only register for a class, which would then imply taking the corresponding course.
Also, what does "ClassSchedule" stand for? Is an instance of a "ClassSchedule" a class meeting?
Since your model is supposed to define a design (of database tables and of, e.g., Java classes), each entity class should have an ID attribute defined, which is expressed in UML with the keyword "id" in curly braces appended to the attribute declaration. Having "ID" in the attribute names is not a formal declaration. Also, an ID attribute seems to be missing for ClassSchedule.
Yes, that's fine this way. You could alternatively use the association class notation like this:
Some side notes:
labeling associations is not that helpful except you are on a business level analysis. Rather use role names on either end where appropriate.
Edit I somehow overlooked that you're designing tables. So my previous comment
remove all the id attributes. Each object will have its unique id assigned by the runtime system. Use such an id only if it's of public meaning (e.g. a passport id or a student's registration number). And then use that specific name (e.g. passportId) rather than a <class>id.
goes just for basic class design. If you already have a (derived) table design you can just go with those ids.
I'm developing an application with Domain Drive Design approach. in a special case I have to retrieve the list of value objects of an aggregate and present them. to do that I've created a read only repository like this:
public interface IBlogTagReadOnlyRepository : IReadOnlyRepository<BlogTag, string>
{
IEnumerable<BlogTag> GetAllBlogTagsQuery(string tagName);
}
BlogTag is a value object in Blog aggregate, now it works fine but when I think about this way of handling and the future of the project, my concerns grow! it's not a good idea to create a separate read only repository for every value object included in those cases, is it?
anybody knows a better solution?
You should not keep value objects in their own repository since only aggregate roots belong there. Instead you should review your domain model carefully.
If you need to keep track of value objects spanning multiple aggregates, then maybe they belong to another aggregate (e.g. a tag cloud) that could even serve as sort of a factory for the tags.
This doesn't mean you don't need a BlogTag value object in your Blog aggregate. A value object in one aggregate could be an entity in another or even an aggregate root by itself.
Maybe you should take a look at this question. It addresses a similar problem.
I think you just need a query service as this method serves the user interface, it's just for presentation (reporting), do something like..
public IEnumerable<BlogTagViewModel> GetDistinctListOfBlogTagsForPublishedPosts()
{
var tags = new List<BlogTagViewModel>();
// Go to database and run query
// transform to collection of BlogTagViewModel
return tags;
}
This code would be at the application layer level not the domain layer.
And notice the language I use in the method name, it makes it a bit more explicit and tells people using the query exactly what the method does (if this is your intent - I am guessing a little, but hopefully you get what I mean).
Cheers
Scott
In a JSF page I have to display the data from an entity.
This entity has some int fields which cannot be displayed directly but need to be translated into a descriptive string.
Between them some can have a limited number of values, others have lots of possible values (such as a wordlwide Country_ID) and deserve a table on the Db with the association (ID, description).
This latter case can easily be solved navigating via relationship from the original entity to the entity corresponding to the dictionary table (ID, description) but I don't want to introduce new entities just to solve translations form ID to description.
Besides another integer field has special needs: the hundred thousand number should be changed with a letter according to a rule such as 100015 -> A00015, 301023 -> C01023.
Initially I put the translation code inside the entity itself but I know the great limits and drawbacks of this solution.
Then I created a singletone (EntityTranslator) with all the methods to translate the different fields. For cases where the field values are a lot I put them inside a table which is loaded from the singletone and transformed in a TreeMap, otherwise the descriptions are in arrays inside the class.
In the ManagedBean I wrote a getter for EntityTranslator and inside the jsf I use quite long el statements like the following:
#{myManagedBean.entityTranslator.translateCountryID(myManagedBean.selectedEntity.countryID)}
I think the problem is quite general and I'm looking for a standard way to solve it but, as already stated, I don't want to create new 'stupid' entities only to associate an ID to a description, I think it is overkill.
Another possibility is the use of converters Object(Integer) <-> String but I'm more comfortable in having all the translation needs for an Entity inside the same class.
Your question boils down to the following simple line:
How can I display a field different from id of my entity in my view and how can I morph an integer field into something more meaningful.
The answer is that it depends on a situation.
If you solely want to input/output data, you don't need id at all apart from the possible view parameter like ?id=12345. In this case you can input/output anything you want in your view: the id is always there.
If you want to create a new entity most possibly you have a way of generating ids via JPA, or database, or elsehow besides the direct input from the user. In this situation you don't need to mess with ids as well.
If you want to use information on other entities like show user a dropdown box with e.g. a list of countries, you always have the option to separate label (let it be name) and value (let it be id), or even have a unique not null column containing the country name in your database table that will serve as a natural identifier. If you'd like to get data from the user using an input text field you always can create a converter that will do the job of transforming user input strings to actual entity objects.
Regarding the transformation of your integers, you've actually got several choices: the first one is to attach a converter for these fields that will roughly do 301023 -> C01023 and C01023 -> 301023 transformations, the second one is to write a custom EL function and the third one is to prepare the right model beforehand / do the transformations on-the-fly.
I have noticed in Geddy that when I create a model and a subsequent record for that model, I get a very ugly model ID associated with the record. Something like:
http://localhost:4000/posts/3FEEDE8D-2669-445B-AEA1-A31092A7FEDA
Is there a way to change this?
Ideally, I would always want this to be some sort of string. Where it be for a post or user:
http://localhost:4000/posts/this-is-a-post-title
http://localhost:4000/profile/meebix
If this is possible, how should I:
Configure routes
Change primary key for model
Other implementation steps I may need
Thanks!
Yes, you can change the id if you really want to, but you'll be going off the beaten path there, so it's quite a bad idea. Let Geddy handle IDs for you.
The way I would do this (and certainly how many others have too) is to have a "slugging" function create a slug from the post title, and save that in your database. Then, query on that instead in your show action. You won't have to change your routes.
This is what your query will look like in the show action:
Post.first({slug: params.id}, function (err, post) {
params.id is whatever string you use in the route /posts/<this string>
So once you change your show links to use the slug instead of the ID you will be all set!
I am designing an application that will display dynamically-generated forms to the user who will then enter values into the form fields and submit those values for persistence. The form represents an employee evaluation.
One use case allows an administrator (from HR) to define the form fields. They should be able to create a new form, add/remove fields from a form and mark a form as 'deleted'.
The second use case is when a manager views the form and enters values into the form fields for a specific employee. They should be able to save the values at any time and recall the saved values when viewing the form again for the same employee.
Finally, when the manager is satisfied with the values they've entered for that employee, they can 'submit' the form data which persists the flattened data into the data warehouse for reporting purposes. When this is done, the 'working' copy of the data is removed so the form will display empty the next time they view it for that employee.
I am not concerned with the front-end at this point and working on the back-end service application that sits between the client and the data store. The application must provide a course-grained interface for all of the behavior required.
My question is how many aggregate roots do I actually have (and from that, how many repositories, etc)? Do I separate the form definition from the form data even though I need both when displaying the form to the user?
I see two main entities, 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' and 'EmployeeEvaluation'. The 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' entity would have a collection of 'FieldDefinition' value objects which would contain the properties that define a field, the most basic being the name of the field. The 'EmployeeEvaluation' entity would have a collection of 'FieldValue' value objects which contain the values for each field from the definition. In the simplest case, it would have a field name and value property. Next, the 'EmployeeEvaluation' could have a reference to 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' to specify which definition the particular evaluation is based on. This can also be used to enforce the form definition in each evaluation. You would have two repositories - one for each entity. If you were to use an ORM such as NHibernate, then when you retrieve a 'EmployeeEvaluation' entity, the associated 'EmployeeEvaluationSchema' would also be retrieved even though there is a dedicated repository for it.
From your description it sounds like your objects don't have any behavior and are simple DTOs. If that is the case maybe you should not bother doing DDD. Can you imagine your entities without having getters? There are better ways to do CRUDish application than DDD. Again this is only valid if your "domain" does not have relevant behavior.