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; }
}
Related
I have a Repository interface that has two implementations. One reads data from a locally stored CSV file while the other reads from an Amazon Dynamo DB. I would like to be able to switch between which implementation I'm using based on an application property or custom build profile. I would normally use a Factory to retrieve the correct class at runtime, but I would like to do this with injection if possible.
I found a similar question using Spring boot but couldn't find an equivalent that would work in Quarkus Spring choose bean implementation at runtime
I also tried implementing a Configuration class similar to what is found in the docs here but again didn't have much luck. https://quarkus.io/guides/cdi-reference#default_beans
It feels like I'm missing something obvious so any pointers would be much appreciated.
Here is a simple example of my classes:
#ApplicationScoped
public class ExampleService {
#Inject
ExampleRepository repository;
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
return repository.retrieveData();
}
}
public interface ExampleRepository {
List<Data> retrieveData();
}
#ApplicationScoped
public class DynamoRepository implements ExampleRepository {
#Override
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
//Get Data from DynamoDb
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
public class CsvRepository implements ExampleRepository {
#Inject
CsvBeanHandler csvBeanHandler;
#Inject
LocalFileReader fileReader;
#Override
public List<Data> retrieveData() {
// Get data from CSV
}
}
I currently also have the following in my application.yml:
com:
example:
application:
storage-type: 'CSV' # OR AMAZON_DYNAMO_DB
It looks like they've added this directly to the documentation:
https://quarkus.io/guides/cdi-reference#declaratively-choose-beans-that-can-be-obtained-by-programmatic-lookup
I feel a bit guilty pasting this much, but it's the SO way.
I can add that it is NOT like a Guice 'binding'; BOTH classes will be instantiated, but only one will be injected. Also unlike Guice, you cannot inject the interface (or I did it wrong) - you have to do what's shown below, with Instance.
Personally I just use constructor injection and then drop the value of the Instance wrapper into a final field, so I'm not crying about the extra step. I do miss the power and explicit bindings possible with Modules ala Guice, but the simplicity here has its own value.
5.16. Declaratively Choose Beans That Can Be Obtained by Programmatic Lookup
It is sometimes useful to narrow down the set of beans that can be
obtained by programmatic lookup via javax.enterprise.inject.Instance.
Typically, a user needs to choose the appropriate implementation of an
interface based on a runtime configuration property.
Imagine that we have two beans implementing the interface
org.acme.Service. You can’t inject the org.acme.Service directly
unless your implementations declare a CDI qualifier. However, you can
inject the Instance instead, then iterate over all
implementations and choose the correct one manually. Alternatively,
you can use the #LookupIfProperty and #LookupUnlessProperty
annotations. #LookupIfProperty indicates that a bean should only be
obtained if a runtime configuration property matches the provided
value. #LookupUnlessProperty, on the other hand, indicates that a bean
should only be obtained if a runtime configuration property does not
match the provided value.
#LookupIfProperty Example
interface Service {
String name();
}
#LookupIfProperty(name = "service.foo.enabled", stringValue = "true")
#ApplicationScoped
class ServiceFoo implements Service {
public String name() {
return "foo";
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
class ServiceBar implements Service {
public String name() {
return "bar";
}
}
#ApplicationScoped
class Client {
#Inject
Instance<Service> service;
void printServiceName() {
// This will print "bar" if the property "service.foo.enabled" is NOT set to "true"
// If "service.foo.enabled" is set to "true" then service.get() would result in an AmbiguousResolutionException
System.out.println(service.get().name());
}
}
If your request is to bind at startup time the right implementation based on a configuration property, I suppose your problem may be resolved used #Produces annotation:
public class ExampleRepositoryFactory {
#Config("storage-type")
String storageType;
#Produces
public ExampleRepository dynamoInstance() {
return storageType == "CSV" ? new CsvRepository() : new DynamoRepository();
}
}
I've started looking into Groovy, and I've some mixed feelings about how class arguments are defined. By default, they include getter and setter, but what if I don't want to have a setter? What is the way to restrict to only allowing to get a value of a property? In C# it can be done like this:
public double Hours
{
get { return seconds / 3600; }
}
If I'm not mistaken.
If you declare the property as final, a setter won't be created.
Or, if you declare your own private/protected setter, then a public one won't be created.
So, as in your example:
Integer hours
private void setHours(Integer hours) {}
Or:
final Integer hours
One way is to Metaprogramming feature of Groovy. In this case overrides
setProperty(String name, Object value) method to intercept the setter calls and trow exception instead.
class A {
String a
String b
void setProperty(String name, Object value){
throw new IllegalAccessError()
}
}
This also works with getter as well by override def getProperty(String name).
In groovy once field is created, it will be by default public , setter and getter will be created.
So You can declare your own setter or getter and specify the access level, in this case, the default one will not be created.
example :
private void setHours(Integer hours) {
seconds * 3600
}
I wanted to implement the factory pattern with CDI. Here we have the business case example:
A client provides a string representing a type. Depending on this type the factory returns an implementation of an interface.
I know that there are a lot of questions flying around concerning factory pattern and CDI. The difference I have here is that I resolve the implementation returned by the factory based on a runtime parameter.
I was thinking of using a producer method but then I can not think of how to inject the resolved implementation into the bean where the implementation is needed since this is a runtime parameter which is not necessarily known at contruction time.
So I thought of the pretty straight forward way of using the Instance class.
Here is the basic implementation :
// the interface. Instances of this class are returned from the factory
public interface Product {
}
// one implementation may be returned by the factory
#ProductType("default")
public class DefaultProduct implements Product {
}
// another implementation may be returned by the factory
#ProductType("myProduct")
public class MyProduct implements Product {
}
// the qualifier annotation
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface ProductType {
String value();
}
// the Annotation implementation to select
// the correct implementation in the factory
public class ProductTypeLiteral extends AnnotationLiteral<ProductType>
implements ProductType {
private String type;
public ProductTypeLiteral(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
#Override
public String value() {
return type;
}
}
// the factory itself. It is annotated with #Singleton because the
// factory is only needed once
#Singleton
public class Factory {
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<Product> products;
public Product getProduct(String type) {
ProductTypeLiteral literal = new ProductTypeLiteral(type);
Instance<Product> typeProducts = products.select(literal);
return typeProducts.get();
}
}
In my opinion using Instance is very sophisticated.
But this has one major drawback:
Everytime you cal the Instance.get() method you retrieve a new Instance of Product. This may be fine but the Instance instance keeps a reference of the returned instance internally. So as long as the Factory lives and each time the Instance.get() is called the more instances of Product will exist in the memory and never get garbage collected because a reference is still hold in Instance.
I thought of not making the Factory a singleton but that just shifts the problem and does not solve it. And of course it is against the factory pattern.
Another solution I tried was to iterate through the Instance instead of selecting an implementation with the help of the annotation:
#Singleton
public class Factory {
#Inject
#Any
private Instance<Product> products;
public Product getProduct(String type) {
Product product = null;
for(Product eachProduct : products) {
ProductType productType = eachProduct.getClass().
getAnnotation(ProductType.class)
if(productType.value().equals(type) {
product = eachProduct;
break;
}
}
return product;
}
}
Basically this is working. Now each time depending on the given type I retrieve the same instance of Product. That way the memory is not consumed.
But I don't like it to iterate over a collection when I have the possibility to resolve the correct implementations more elegantly.
Do you have any ideas which may solve the problem? Otherwise I may have to keep the iteration solution.
Herein lies your problem. Instance keeps reference to instances you obtain from it using get() because it is responsible for reclaiming them when they go out of scope (i.e. when the injected Instance goes out of scope. But because you made your factory a singleton, it will never go out of scope. So, make your factory a short-lived scope, like #RequestScoped or even #Dependent, that way all the returned instances will be reclaimed properly.
Maybe it can help you:
Create qualifiers:
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface MyProduct{
}
#Qualifier
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Target({ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER, ElementType.TYPE})
public #interface DefaultProduct{
}
In Factory class:
#Singleton
public class Factory {
public Product getProduct(#MyProduct MyProduct product, #DefaultProduct DefaultProduct defaultProduct) {
//What you wanna do
}
}
I ask this squestion on behalf of one of my developers. Haven't looked into details myself.
Assume you have a simple managed bean (=contact) This bean has a method to get the contacts firstName.
I can open an xpage and bind the bean to a computedText Field #{contact.firstName}
In our application we use a tabContainer to have multiple documents of the same type ( contact ) open.
How do I have to use my bean in the container?
faces-config.xml:
<managed-bean>
<managed-bean-name>person</managed-bean-name>
<managed-bean-class>com.package.Person</managed-bean-class>
<managed-bean-scope>request</managed-bean-scope>
</managed-bean>
Java Bean Class:
public class Person implements Serializable {
private String strDocumentID;
private Document docData;
private String strFirstName;
private String strLastName;
private static final long serialVersionUID = 2934723410254681213L;
public Person() {
//setting the DocumentUniqueID of the current in a tab opened document
//attention: there could be more than one open tab, all with different documents
//and even different document types; and it is possible to switch back and forth between tabs
//DocumentId = ???;
//Setting the values from the stored document to the object
//setValues();
}
private void setValues() {
try {
Session session=NotesContext.getCurrent().getCurrentSession();
Database currdb=session.getCurrentDatabase();
docData=currdb.getDocumentByUNID(DocumentId);
setStrFirstName(docData.getItemValueString("FirstName"));
setStrLastName(docData.getItemValueString("LastName"));
} catch (NotesException e) {
throw new FacesException("Could not open document for documentId "+ DocumentId, e);
}
}
public Document getDataDocument() {
return docData;
}
public void setDataDocument(Document docData) {
this.docData = docData;
}
public String getDocumentId() {
return DocumentId;
}
public void setDocumentId(String documentId) {
DocumentId = documentId;
}
public String getStrFirstName() {
return strFirstName;
}
public void setStrFirstName(String strFirstName) {
this.strFirstName = strFirstName;
}
public String getStrLastName() {
return strLastName;
}
public void setStrLastName(String strLastName) {
this.strLastName = strLastName;
}
}
Custom Control with computed field:
person.strFirstName
So, the problem is the constructor of the Person Class. It needs to get the "link" to the opened document when the document is opened in a tab and everytime when switched back to this tab. And this without the use of any Data source, because this is what should be done by the managed bean itself.
So, hope that helped to get a little bit more understanding of the problem.
If not, please ask again.
My advice:
make another meta bean implementing map interface. Alter its getter to instantiate and return your data bean. Binding may be then:
meta[someparamwithunid].field
And save would be:
meta[someparamwithunid].setValues()
Like this:
public class People implments java.util.Map {
Map<String,Person> people = new HashMap<String,Person>();
public Person get(String unid) {
if people.keySet().contains(unid) {
return people.get(unid)
} else {
// make instance and store it in people map, return it
}
// implement other methods
}
With view scope I think there is no problem with concurrency.
Frantisek points into the right direction. Your request bean would not be a person bean, but a people bean. You then can use an expression like
#{people[index].name}
to refer to a specific person. People would be the managed bean and the index could either be the UNID or the tab number. I find the later one easier to implement. you need to have a loadPerson(index) = UNID function to load an existing person. More information on the use of Expression language can be found here:
Sun Oracle JSF documentation or in some Course materials.
Hope that helps.
I'm not sure if this bean will work in the requestScope because you have probably a lot of partial refreshes with the tabcontainer (maybe try change it to a higher level scope).
Writing a simple JSF application I've some across the following Problem:
My entities.controller.EntityNameManager class contains a method getEntityNameSelectList() which I can use to populate a ComboBox with. This works and shows all Entities, since the Method to retrieve the Entities does not have a where clause.
This Method was automatically created.
Now I want to have a second similar Method, that filters the options based on a variable in the sessionscope. To do this I copied the original Method, renamed it to getEntityNameSelectListByUser(User theUser) and changed the Method that queries the database to one that does indeed filter by UserId.
However, when trying to load the page in the browser, I get an error stating that the controller class does not have a "EntityNameSelectListByUser" property. I assume that since my new method expects a parameter it can't be found. Is there a way I can make it aware of the Parameter or the Sessionscope userid?
Support for parameters in EL is slated for the next maintenance release of JSR 245 (announcement here; implementation here).
Assuming you don't want to wait for JEE6, you have several ways to overcome this limitation. These approached are defined in terms of POJO managed beans, so adapt them to your EJBs as appropriate.
1.
Do the session lookup and function call in a backing bean:
public String getFoo() {
FacesContext context = FacesContext
.getCurrentInstance();
ExternalContext ext = context.getExternalContext();
String bar = (String) ext.getSessionMap().get("bar");
return getFoo(bar);
}
Example binding:
#{paramBean.foo}
2.
Use an EL function (defined in a TLD, mapped to a public static method):
public static String getFoo(ParamBean bean, String bar) {
return bean.getFoo(bar);
}
Example binding:
#{baz:getFoo(paramBean, bar)}
3.
Subvert the Map class to call the function (a bit of a hack and limited to one parameter):
public Map<String, String> getFooMap() {
return new HashMap<String, String>() {
#Override
public String get(Object key) {
return getFoo((String) key);
}
};
}
Example binding:
#{paramBean.fooMap[bar]}