When a form is submitted, some properties pass validation and some don't. If any of the properties fail validation, the model is not updated. I was wondering, is it possible to change this default behavior and have the properties that pass validation (and only them) updated with their new values in the model?
It's not directly possible without providing your own LifeCycle implementation. This behaviour is namely explicitly definied in the JSF specification. Doing things differently would mean that you void the JSF specification.
What's the rationale behind this question? If you elaborate that, you may get easier workable solutions.
Update: the requirement is sound. You want to autosave forms. You may find this IBM article useful then.
Related
Hybris tell us that Converters should use populators and not vice versa because can be critical for performance considerations.
But when I am digging in hybris code you can see populators like DefaultAbstractOrderEntryPopulator, ProductFeatureListPopulator which
are wiring converters.And I have also find Populators using other populators such as ProductPopulator.
I read the following links but I cannot find anything about using a converter inside a populator or populator inside of populators:
Wiki Hybris - Converters and Populators
Wiki Hybris - DTOS best practice
Wiki Hybris 6
so, can we use converters inside populator like Hybris does? and populators inside populators?
I would like to give my point of view to answer this question. One common mistake when working with converters and populators is to confuse them.
Converters creates a DTO and populators filling the DTO.
We have to be very careful when we are going to use a converter inside of a populator and to be completely sure that
we need to do that.
If we have a long chain of populators using converters we can have a performance risk. For instance
C1->P1->C2->P2->C3->P3....
I think the best practise to follow is:
1) Be aware of the converters are already done, and ckeck if we have to add our populator to an existing Converter
(for example using the modifyPopulatorList)
2) If our DTO has another dependency with other DTO
We should ask ourselves if that dependency it is really necessary.I will decide this according to if that second DTO is used in many places
or not.Because if you are the only one who use it maybe you can merge the properties in only one DTO and avoid to have two different converters.
3) Other possibility It is to use differents converter in parallel as we can see in
WIKI HYBRIS - Facades and DTOs
To sum up, the design of our converters and populators is our responsability, and we have to get the best design posible of them to avoid
performance problems.
Basically the way to do it is: never write a concrete converter class and never call a populator directly.
But this is how the product is built for extensibility and frankly you can do whatever you like.
I'm trying to implement a proper layer separation in my XPage project. Ideally I'm trying to get to a point where the XML in the XPage contains no SSJS and uses only EL to access Java objects.
So far I've worked out how to load all my data from the domino database into Java Beans (where 1 document = 1 Object, more or less), I'm reading view contents into Java Maps or Lists, and I've managed to display the content of these collections in repeat controls.
What I'm unsure of is how to display the content of a 'form', of a single document, without referencing the domino document. In particular, I'm unsure of how to deal with the 'new document' case. I suppose I create an empty object, then set that object as a data source for the Xpage.
I'm aware that I have to use a ObjectDataSource for this, but I'm unsure where to actually store it. I read an article from Stephan Wissel stating that one shouldn't put them in managed bean, so where can I put it? In one of the scoped variables like viewScope?
Right now I've written an 'ApplicationBean' which is a session-scope Managed Bean where I'm storing all my objects.
What is the best practise? It seems that there are many different ways to meet that goal. Currently I'm exploring Christian Güdemann's XPages Toolkit, which sounds very promising. I know that Samir Pipalia, John Daalsgard and Frank van der Linden have worked up their own frameworks.
So how should I go about it? Any pitfalls?
This is a large topic indeed. As Paul mentioned, Tim's document model classes are a great example of how to do that clearly, and Tim goes into more detail in later episodes in that NotesIn9 series. My own Framework's model objects are fairly similar, though I also added collection managers to handle the dirty business of accessing views. For better or for worse, almost every XPage developer solves this problem in a unique way.
There are a number of ways you can go about implementing this sort of thing, and some of the differences aren't terribly important in normal cases (for example, whether you preload all data from the document when constructing the model object or do lazy fetching to the back-end only as needed), but there are definitely a couple overarching questions to tackle.
Model Access
As you mentioned in the question, one of the big problems is how you actually access model objects from the XPage - how the objects are fetched from the DB or created anew. My Framework's model objects use a conceit of "Manager" objects, which are application-scoped beans that allow getting either named collections (which map to views), model objects by UNID, or a new model object via the keyword "new". Generally, these models (which are Serializable) are then stored in the view scope of the page using them either via <xp:dataContext/>, <xe:objectData/>, or the Framework's own <ff:modelObjectData/>.
I've found it very wise to avoid using managed beans to represent individual objects (like "CurrentWhatever" that you then fill with data on each page), since that muddies up your faces-config in the best case or runs into session problems in the worst (if you put it in session scope, which I rarely use).
How you implement "new" vs. "fetched" model objects depends largely on the tack you take to write your models in the first place, but most boil down to having two constructors: one to take a UNID (at least) to point to existing document and one to create a new one. If you go the "write every properly explicitly in the object with getters and setters" route, the latter would also initialize all of the fields with default values instead of reading them from a document. Internally, you should have fields to store the UNID of the document, which can indicate whether it's new or not - then, your save method can check if this field is empty and create a new document if needed (and then store the new doc's UNID in the field).
Views
It sounds like you're already reading your model collections into Lists, which is good. One down side there, though, is scalability: with small (less than 100) collections, you're likely to not run into any load-speed problems, but afterwards things are going to slow down on initial page load as your code reads in the entire view ahead of time. You can mitigate this somewhat with efficient view reading, but there's a limit. The built-in views are generally speedy because they only load data as needed (they also cheat like hell to do so, but that's another issue).
This is a noble goal to aim for yourself, but doing so to cover all cases is no small feat: you end up running into questions of FT searching, column resorting, efficient data preloading (you don't want to re-open the View object only to read in one entry at a time, but you also don't want to read the whole thing), use in viewPanel and maybe others (which require specialized interfaces), expanding/collapsing categories, and so forth. It's a large sub-topic on its own.
Esoterica
You're also liable to run across other areas that are more difficult than you'd think at first, such as "proper" rich text handing and file attachments. Attachments, in particular, require direct conflict with the XSP framework to get to function properly with custom model objects and the standard upload/download controls.
Case-sensitivity in field names is another potential area of trouble. If you're writing getters and setters for all of your fields, it's a moot point, but if you're going the "thin wrapper" route (which I prefer), it's important to code any intermediary caches/lookups in a way that deal with the fact that "FOO" and "foo" are (basically) the same as item names to Notes, but are distinct in Java. The tack I take is to make extensive use of TreeMaps: if you pass String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER as the parameter to the constructor, it handles treating Strings as generally case-insensitive when used as keys.
Having your model objects work with all the standard controls like that may or may not be a priority - I find it very valuable, so I did a lot of legwork to make it happen with my framework, but if you're just going to do some basic Strings-and-numbers models, you don't necessarily need to worry.
So... yeah, it's a big topic! Depending on how confident you are with Java and the XPages undergirdings, I would suggest either going the route of fairly-simple "beans with getters and setters" for your objects or by looking into the implementation details of one of the existing frameworks (my own or the ones you mentioned). Sadly, there are a lot of little things that will crop up as your code gets more complicated, many of which are non-obvious to deal with.
Jesse Gallagher's Scaffolding framework also accesses Java objects rather than dominoDocument datasources. I've used (and modified) Tim Tripcony's Java objects in his "Using Java in XPages series" from NotesIn9 (the first is episode 132. The source code for what he does is on BitBucket. This basically converts the dominoDocument to a Map. It doesn't cover MIME (Rich Text) or attachments. If it's useful, I can share the amendments I made (e.g. making field names all the same case, to ensure it still works for existing documents, where fields may have been created with LotusScript).
Andrew - Jesse's one of the experts here so I'd read his response carefully.
What I do is I took one of the key pieces of Jesses bigger framework - the "pageControllers" and I use that HEAVILY. So I end up with a Java Class for each XPages to act as the controller. "All" Jesse's page controller framework does is make it a little easier to consume. So you can reference it on each page as "controller" and don't nee dot make individual managed beans for them.
I still will use SOMES SSJS on the XPage if I really need to for things like button events.. some methods that don't have proper getters and setters.. HashMap.size() for instance. But the vast bulk of the code goes into the Java Class. No real need for viewScope variables any more as well.
in the case of a "New Document".. In the controller I'll create a new Java Object that represents the "Current document". I'll bind all the fields to that. If it's new I create a new Object and assign it to the private variable. If I'm loading form somewhere then I take that variable and load the document I want.
I've started to really try and detail this in more recent NotesIn9's. Especially the little series on Java for Xpages developers. I think I got far enough there to show you what you need to know. I do plan on doing a lot more on this topic as soon as I can.
I don't know If this is the right place to ask this question.
How do I make some non technical person to understand "Facelets as View technology"?
I try it.
If you use JSF as presentation layer you can use the advantages of input validation for forms, have a direct data binding to one or more ManagedBeans also known as PoJos with annotation #ManagedBean or #Model/#Named...
JSF components also support the usage of Ajax, so you can update tableviews asynchronous after adding new entries for example.
summarizing in my opinion it is easier to built a modern feeling site by using JSF, there are many different implementations e.g. primefaces, richfaces, etc. so you have the choice which framework you'll use.
Hope this helps, maybe the community can add more.
Patrick
My question here is if I should place a RowVersion [TimeStamp] property in every
entity in my domain model.
For Example: I have an Order class and an OrderDetails "navigation, reference" property,
should I use a RowVersion property for both entities, or is it enough to the parent object?
These classes are pocos meant to be used with Entity Framework Code First approach.
Thank you.
The answer, as often, is "it depends".
Since it will almost always be possible to have an Order without any OrderDetails, you're right that the parent object should have a RowVersion property.
Is it possible to modify an OrderDetail without also modifying the Order? Should it be?
If it isn't possible and shouldn't be, a RowVersion property at the detail level doesn't add anything. You already catch all possible modifications by checking the Order's RowVersion. In that case, only add the property at the top level, and stop reading here.
Otherwise, if two independent contexts load the same order and details, both modify a different OrderDetail, and both try to save, do you want to treat this as a conflict? In some cases, this makes sense. In other cases, it doesn't. To treat it as a conflict, the simplest solution is to actually mark the Order as modified too if it is unchanged (using ObjectStateEntry.SetModified, not ObjectStateEntry.ChangeState). EF will check and cause an update to the Order's RowVersion property, and complain if anyone else made any modifications.
If you do want to allow two independent contexts to modify two different OrderDetails of the same Order, yes, you need a RowVersion attribute at the detail level.
That said: if you load an Order and its OrderDetails into the same context, modify an OrderDetail, and save your changes, Entity Framework may also check and update the Order's RowVersion, even if you don't actually change the Order, causing bogus concurrency exceptions. This has been labelled a bug, and a hotfix is available, or you can install .NET Framework 4.5 (currently available in release candidate form), which fixes it even if your application uses .NET 4.0.
So Meta Programming -- the idea that you can modify classes/objects at runtime, injecting new methods and properties. I know its good for framework development; been working with Grails, and that framework adds a bunch of methods to your classes at runtime. You have a name property on a User object, and bamm, you get a findByName method injected at runtime.
Has my description completely described the concept?
What else is it good for (specific examples) other than framework development?
To me, meta-programming is "a program that writes programs".
Meta-programming is especially good for reuse, because it supports generalization: you can define a family of concepts that belong to a particular pattern. Then, through variability you can apply that concept in similar, but different scenarios.
The simplest example is Java's getters and setters as mentioned by #Sjoerd:
Both getter and setter follow a well-defined pattern: A getter returns a class member, and a setter sets a class member's value. Usually you build what it's called a template to allow application and reuse of that particular pattern. How a template works depends on the meta-programming/code generation approach being used.
If you want a getter or setter to behave in a slightly different way, you may add some parameters to your template. This is variability. For instance, if you want to add additional processing code when getting/setting, you may add a block of code as a variability parameter. Mixing custom code and generated code can be tricky. ABSE is currently the only MDSD approach that I know that natively supports custom code directly as a template parameter.
Meta programming is not only adding methods at runtime, it can also be automatically creating code at compile time. I.e. code generating code.
Web services (i.e. the methods are defined in the WSDL, and you want to use them as if they were real methods on an object)
Avoiding boilerplate code. For example, in Java you should use getters and setters, but these can be made automatically for most properties.