I have the below windsor statement and trying to convert it into a structuremap statement. I really can't find any suggestion how to do it.
Container.Register(AllTypes.FromThisAssembly().
BasedOn<IType>().If(MatchStatement).Configure(c => c.LifeStyle.Transient.
Named(c.Implementation.Name)));
Anyone knows how this is written with structuremap?
EDIT: To make it more clear.. I've got the statement above (almost anyway) written with Windsor Castle but as we will be using Structuremap instead I need to do the same but with Structuremap. I got pieces of it but not all;
Registry.Scan(x =>
{
x.TheCallingAssembly();
x.AddAllTypesOf<IType>();
//{What more?}
});
What I further need is to meet the MatchStatement condition and return the named instance.
StructureMap's default lifecycle is PerGraph (a mix of transient and singleton).
The following code scans the calling assembly and adds all implentations of IType and each implementation is registered with the name of the implementation.
Scan(scan =>
{
scan.TheCallingAssembly();
scan.AddAllTypesOf<IType>().NameBy(type => type.Name);
});
Related
I've been handed the code for a Puppet module which was written by someone else. I've been tasked with getting it working in an actual Puppet environment.
I'm struggling to override defaults in the module in the manifest file. Hopefully this is a syntax issue, and not a issue with the init class.
In init.pp:
class our_module(
# Defaults to be overridden in the manifest file
Hash $config = {
'id' => '38e18a',
'secret' => 'donttellanyone',
'path' => '/test/path'
}
){
# Logic here...
}
How can I override these attributes? I've tried the following which gives my an InvalidCredentialsException:
node 'my_node' {
class { 'our_module':
config => {
id => 'newid',
secret => 'newsecret',
path => '/newpath
}
}
I'm new to Puppet and still getting my head around the docs and the syntax.
Given class our_module as presented in the question, this variation on the node block is valid for declaring that class and customizing its config parameter:
node 'my_node' {
class { 'our_module':
config => {
id => 'newid',
secret => 'newsecret',
path => '/newpath'
}
}
}
Hopefully this is a syntax issue, and not a issue with the init class.
If what you're really using takes the same form as above, then I'm sorry to have to tell you that the problem is not with your class declaration. If your Puppet runs are successful for nodes that do not declare class our_module, then my conclusion would be that the issue is indeed with the class implementation.
I've tried the following which gives my an InvalidCredentialsException
I am disinclined to think that that arises during catalog building. I cannot completely rule out the possibility, but that sure looks like a Java exception, whereas the catalog builder is implemented mainly in Ruby. It could be coming from puppetserver, Puppet's Java-based server front end, but that would not depend on whether your manifests declare a particular class. My crystal ball suggests that the our_module implementation is Execing a Java program when it is applied to the client, and that it is that program that is throwing the exception.
Some of those possibilities could be related to bad class parameter data, but I don't see any reason to think that the issue arises from a syntax error.
While trying to organize the code of my first NodeJS-express project, I ran into some doubts about the use of namespaces, modules and classes. When to choose one? When another?
For example, my project is structured (simplifying) in.
routers -> controllers -> services -> repositories.
The possibilities I thought of to manage these "entities" are the following:
Classes
Classes with static methods
Singletons
Simple module export
Namespaces
Classes
I thought of avoiding them right away, since the above-mentioned entities do not need to memorize any state. Furthermore, they would complicate the code due to the need to be instantiated.
Classes with static methods
They are correct? Or rather a simple namespace or simple export of the modules?
Class + Singletons
A way of organizing the code in a "nicer" way than the simple class, but which does not convince me, since reading on the net that the singleton in TypeScript is replaceable with the namespace.
Simple module export
The way I thought to implement immediately, for example in this way (file user.repository.ts):
const add = async (user: User): Promise<void> => {
if(await canBeAdded(user)) {
//save user;
} else {
// throw error
}
}
export const UserRepository = {
add
}
It's corrects? Or am I not properly using what TypeScript offers? Being the first time I use this language, I would like to be sure I chose the right path.
Namespaces
Are they a better choice to develop the code published above? Are you advised against?
Thank you in advance for the answers! Any advice is welcome!
P.S. I know that, once the TypeScript is compiled, in Javascript the classes are practically syntactic sugar. What I'm interested in knowing are the best practices for writing good code in TypeScript.
I decided to start a new project to get into hacklang, and after fixing some if the problems I initially ran into transitioning from php habits, I ran into the following errors:
Unbound name: str_replace
Unbound name: empty
Doing some research I found that this is due to using 'legacy' php which isn't typechecked, and will error with //strict.
That's fine and all, empty() was easy enough to replace, however str_replace() is a bit more difficult.
Is there an equivalent function that will work with //strict? Or at least something similar.
I'm aware that I could use //decl but I feel like that defeats the purpose in my case.
Is there at least any way to tell which functions are implemented in hack and which are not in the documentation as I couldn't find one?
For reference (though it isn't too relevant to the question itself), here is the code:
<?hh //strict
class HackMarkdown {
public function parse(string $content) : string {
if($content===null){
throw new RuntimeException('Empty Content');
}
$prepared = $this->prepare($content);
}
private function prepare(string $contentpre) : Vector<string>{
$contentpre = str_replace(array("\r\n","\r"),"\n",$contentpre);
//probably need more in here
$prepared = Vector::fromArray(explode($contentpre,"\n"));
//and here
return $prepared;
}
}
You don't need to change your code at all. You just need to tell the Hack tools about all the inbuilt PHP functions.
The easiest way to do this is to download this folder and put it somewhere in your project. I put it in a hhi folder in the base of my project. The files in there tell Hack about all the inbuilt PHP functions.
Most of them don't have type hints, which can lead to Hack thinking the return type of everything is mixed instead of the actual return, that is actually correct in most cases as, for example, str_replace can return either a string or a bool. However, it does stop the "unbound name" errors, which is the main reason for adding them.
I have encounter really weird behaviour which goes against what I have learned, tutorial says etc. So I would be glad if someone could explain why that is happening.
I have a role module which is made up of composition of profiles (role-profile pattern). My role consists:
class role::lab_prg_c2_dn inherits lab_prg_c2 {
class { 'profile::cluster_data_node':
namenode_fqdn => $role::lab_prg_c2::namenode_fqdn,
secondarynamenode_fqdn => $role::lab_prg_c2::secondarynamenode_fqdn,
}
->
class{'bigdatasolution':}
}
First class installs technology and second one installs our components and items which are build on top of technology. Hence the technology need to be installed first, thats the reason for "->" dependency. However this seems to me doesn't work correctly. As components from class 'bigdatasolution' are installed somewhere before the class profile::cluster_data_node finishes.
I tried to use require => Class['profile::cluster_data_node'] but that doesn't make any difference!
The content of class{'bigdatasolution':} :
class bigdatasolution {
$hdfs_default_conf = '/usr/local/hadoop.hdfs.conf'
$hbase_default_conf = '/usr/local/hadoop.hbase.conf'
include symlinks
include bdjar
}
Symlinks - create symlinks for the configuration installed in class profile::cluster_data_node and are not directly managed - it will be presented when actually specified package get installed.
bdjar - add our jar to a technology library so content is as follows:
class bigdatasolution::bdjar {
file { "/usr/lib/hadoop/lib/bigdata-properties.jar":
ensure => present,
mode => 0644,
group => 'root',
owner => 'root',
source => "puppet:///modules/bigdatasolution/bigdata-properties.jar"
}
}
I even tried to put require => "technologycalClass" here but that doesn't help either.
Can someone please help me understand what's wrong and how that should be solved properly?
I Using puppet 3 and ordering is specified explicetly - so no arbitrary ordering set by puppet should happen.
Thanks
If your 'profile::cluster_data_node' class 'includes' other classes/modules they will have no dependency ordering with the 'bigdatasolution' class.
I see you actually do include symlinks and bdjar. Basically every piece of ordering you want to have in puppet, you need to write explicitly.
Here you should replace the include statements with require, that way the class cluster_data_node will require the other two modules to complete before it says it has completed. Include is a pretty lose way of importing things in puppet and in my opinion is best to just avoid it and go with explicit require statements instead.
TL;DR: included modules have no transitive ordering; required modules do.
I am wondering if there is a way to ignore certain TypeScript errors upon compilation?
I basically have the same issues most people with large projects have around using the this keyword, and I don't want to put all my classes methods into the constructor.
So I have got an example like so:
TypeScript Example
Which seems to create perfectly valid JS and allows me to get around the this keyword issue, however as you can see in the example the typescript compiler tells me that I cannot compile that code as the keyword this is not valid within that scope. However I don't see why it is an error as it produces okay code.
So is there a way to tell it to ignore certain errors? I am sure given time there will be a nice way to manage the this keyword, but currently I find it pretty dire.
== Edit ==
(Do not read unless you care about context of this question and partial rant)
Just to add some context to all this to show that I'm not just some nut-job (I am sure a lot of you will still think I am) and that I have some good reasons why I want to be able to allow these errors to go through.
Here are some previous questions I have made which highlight some major problems (imo) with TypeScript current this implementation.
Using lawnchair with Typescript
Issue with child scoping of this in Typescript
https://typescript.codeplex.com/discussions/429350 (And some comments I make down the bottom)
The underlying problem I have is that I need to guarantee that all logic is within a consistent scope, I need to be able to access things within knockout, jQuery etc and the local instance of a class. I used to do this with the var self = this; within the class declaration in JavaScript and worked great. As mentioned in some of these previous questions I cannot do that now, so the only way I can guarantee the scope is to use lambda methods, and the only way I can define one of these as a method within a class is within the constructor, and this part is HEAVILY down to personal preference, but I find it horrific that people seem to think that using that syntax is classed as a recommended pattern and not just a work around.
I know TypeScript is in alpha phase and a lot will change, and I HOPE so much that we get some nicer way to deal with this but currently I either make everything a huge mess just to get typescript working (and this is within Hundreds of files which I'm migrating over to TypeScript ) or I just make the call that I know better than the compiler in this case (VERY DANGEROUS I KNOW) so I can keep my code nice and hopefully when a better pattern comes out for handling this I can migrate it then.
Also just on a side note I know a lot of people are loving the fact that TypeScript is embracing and trying to stay as close to the new JavaScript features and known syntax as possible which is great, but typescript is NOT the next version of JavaScript so I don't see a problem with adding some syntactic sugar to the language as people who want to use the latest and greatest official JavaScript implementation can still do so.
The author's specific issue with this seems to be solved but the question is posed about ignoring errors, and for those who end up here looking how to ignore errors:
If properly fixing the error or using more decent workarounds like already suggested here are not an option, as of TypeScript 2.6 (released on Oct 31, 2017), now there is a way to ignore all errors from a specific line using // #ts-ignore comments before the target line.
The mendtioned documentation is succinct enough, but to recap:
// #ts-ignore
const s : string = false
disables error reporting for this line.
However, this should only be used as a last resort when fixing the error or using hacks like (x as any) is much more trouble than losing all type checking for a line.
As for specifying certain errors, the current (mid-2018) state is discussed here, in Design Meeting Notes (2/16/2018) and further comments, which is basically
"no conclusion yet"
and strong opposition to introducing this fine tuning.
I think your question as posed is an XY problem. What you're going for is how can I ensure that some of my class methods are guaranteed to have a correct this context?
For that problem, I would propose this solution:
class LambdaMethods {
constructor(private message: string) {
this.DoSomething = this.DoSomething.bind(this);
}
public DoSomething() {
alert(this.message);
}
}
This has several benefits.
First, you're being explicit about what's going on. Most programmers are probably not going to understand the subtle semantics about what the difference between the member and method syntax are in terms of codegen.
Second, it makes it very clear, from looking at the constructor, which methods are going to have a guaranteed this context. Critically, from a performance, perspective, you don't want to write all your methods this way, just the ones that absolutely need it.
Finally, it preserves the OOP semantics of the class. You'll actually be able to use super.DoSomething from a derived class implementation of DoSomething.
I'm sure you're aware of the standard form of defining a function without the arrow notation. There's another TypeScript expression that generates the exact same code but without the compile error:
class LambdaMethods {
private message: string;
public DoSomething: () => void;
constructor(message: string) {
this.message = message;
this.DoSomething = () => { alert(this.message); };
}
}
So why is this legal and the other one isn't? Well according to the spec: an arrow function expression preserves the this of its enclosing context. So it preserves the meaning of this from the scope it was declared. But declaring a function at the class level this doesn't actually have a meaning.
Here's an example that's wrong for the exact same reason that might be more clear:
class LambdaMethods {
private message: string;
constructor(message: string) {
this.message = message;
}
var a = this.message; // can't do this
}
The way that initializer works by being combined with the constructor is an implementation detail that can't be relied upon. It could change.
I am sure given time there will be a nice way to manage the this keyword, but currently I find it pretty dire.
One of the high-level goals (that I love) in TypeScript is to extend the JavaScript language and work with it, not fight it. How this operates is tricky but worth learning.