Let's say I have a notes app. I want to enable the user to make changes while he is offline, save the changes optimistically in a Mobx store, and add a request to save the changes (on the server) to a queue.
Then when the internet connection is re-established I want to run the requests in the queue one by one so the data in the app syncs with data on the server.
Any suggestions would help.
I tried using react-native-job-queue but it doesn't seem to work.
I also considered react-native-queue but the library seems to be abandoned.
You could create a separate store (or an array in AsyncStorage) for pending operations, and add the operations to an array there when the network is disconnected. Tell your existing stores to look there for data, so you can render it optimistically. Then, when you detect a connection, run the updates in array order, and clear the array when done.
You could also use your existing stores, and add something like pending: true to values that haven't posted to your backend. However, you'll have less control over the order of operations, which sounds like it is important.
As it turns out I was in the wrong. The react-native-job-queue library does work, I just made a mistake by trying to pass a function reference (API call) to the Worker instead of just passing an object that contains the request URL and method and then just implement the Worker to make the API call based on those parameters.
Related
VueJS + Quasar + Pinia + Axios
Single page application
I have an entity called user with 4 endpoints associated:
GET /users
POST /user
PUT /user/{id}
DELETE /user/{id}
When I load my page I call the GET and I save the response slice of users inside a store (userStore)
Post and Put returns the created/updated user in the body of the response
Is it a good practice to manually update the slice of users in the store after calling one of these endpoints, or is better to call the GET immediatly after ?
If you own the API or can be sure about the behavior of what PUT/POST methods return, you can use local state manipulation. Those endpoints should return the same value as what the GET endpoint returns inside. Otherwise, you might end up with incomplete or wrong data on the local state.
By mutating the state locally without making an extra GET request, the user can immediately see the change in the browser. It will also be kinder to your server and the user's data usage.
However, if creating the resource(user, in this case) was a really common operation accessible by lots of users, then calling the GET endpoint to return a slice would be better since it would have more chance to include the new ones that are created by other users. But, in that case, listening to real-time events(i.e. using WebSockets) would be even better to ensure everyone gets accurate and new data in real-time.
I'm looking for an easy way to integrate Vue.js with AutobahnJS.
I've already checked this repo for guidance/template, but my main problem is that Autobahn has two layers of "wait":
First you create a Connection/Session instance
You wait for it to connect (maybe even retry N times)
Only after this can you access the session methods (subscribe/call/etc..)
With my limited JS knowledge (i'm a backend dev), i have two ideas:
Create a global variable which will be assigned to the autobahn session after connection. This will surely cause cases where the var is not yet set, so I'd have to check it's existence every time I want to subscribe from a vue instance.
Place the Vue init code into the Session connected callback, but then that would delay the whole application, which is obviously bad too.
I'm looking for a simple and efficient solution, not necessarily a full-fledged plugin (which I haven't found anywhere).
Any help/advice is appreciated!
I've been looking for a plugin like this: https://github.com/lajosbencz/vue-wamp
Plugin calls are deferred until autobahn Session is ready, unsubscribe and unregister are automatically called component-wise.
currently the JSONStore API provides a load() method that says in the documentation:
This function always stores whatever it gets back from the adapter. If
the data exists, it is duplicated in the collection". This means that
if you want to avoid duplicates by calling load() on an already
populated collection, you need to empty or drop the collection before.
But if you want to be able to keep the elements you already have in
the collection in case there is no more connectivity and your
application goes for offline mode, you also need to keep track of
these existing elements.
Since the API doesn't provide a "overwrite" option that would replace the existing elements in case the call to the adapter succeeds, I'm wondering what kind of logic should be put in place in order to manage both offline availability of data and capability to refresh at any time? It is not that obvious to manage all the failure cases by nesting the JS code due to the promises...
Thanks for your advices!
One approach to achieve this:
Use enhance to create your own load method (i.e. loadAndOverwrite). You should have access to the all the variables kept inside an JSONStore instance (collection name, adapter name, adapter load procedure name, etc. -- you will probably use those variables in the invokeProcedure step below).
Call push to make sure there are no local changes.
Call invokeProcedure to get data, all the variables you need should be provided in the context of enhance.
Find if the document already exists and then remove it. Use {push: false} so JSONStore won't track that change.
Use add to add the new/updated document. Use {push: false} so JSONStore won't track that change.
Alternatively, if the document exists you can use replace to update it.
Alternatively, you can use removeCollection and call load again to refresh the data.
There's an example that shows how to use all those API calls here.
Regarding promises, read this from InfoCenter and this from HTML5Rocks. Google can provide more information.
I was wondering if there is a way to share an NSManagedObject between two or more NSManagedObjectContext objects running in the same thread.
I have the following problem: I have one main context shared through all my code in the application and several different contexts that are created for each remote fetch request that I issue. (I created a custom class that fetches remotely and inserts all the objects found in the server in his own NSManagedObjectContext). Those fetch requests may run simultaneously since they use NSURLConnection objects that may end at different times. If the same remote object gets fetched by different connections, I will end up with duplicates at the moment of saving and merging the context with the main one. (That is, objects that have the same remote ID but a different objectID).
One possible solution would be to save (and so persist) every object as soon as it is created but I can't do that because it may have some relationships that may still have not been filled and won't validate during the save operation.
I'm really looking forward to a method that allows you to share the same non-persistent instance of an object between context. If anybody has encountered this issue and came up with a solution, I would be pleased to know!
Context cannot communicate between each other save through their stores. However, you can insert a managed object with a nil managed object context and it will be independent (albeit without relationships) of any context. You could pass that independent managed object around however you wished and insert it into a context when you needed to persist it. This is dangerous but possible.
However, if you're not running each connection on a separate thread then you don't gain anything by having multiple context. Each connection object will activate its delegate in sequence on the main thread. In this case, your easiest solution would be to use the same delegate for all the connections and let the delegate handle the insertions into a single context. To prevent duplication, just do a fetch on the remoteID and see if you get back an extant object before inserting a new object for that remoteID.
I don't think what you want to do is possible. I mean if you want to share changes between different contexts, you got to use notifications and merge it whenever did save or did change occur. But in your case, I'd say just use 1 context and save in the end. Or a less elegant way: save all the remote ids temporary in your app and check before inserting new ones. In this case, you can continue use multiple contexts and save after each didfinishloading.
I'm working on a small application using C++/wxWidgets, where several parts of the GUI need to be updated based on e.g. received UDP datagrams. More specifically, a secondary thread tries to keep a list of available "clients" in the network (which may come and go away) and e.g. corresponding comboboxes in the UI need to be updated to reflect the changes.
The documentation mentions that for this kind of thing EVT_UPDATE_UI would be a good choice. As far as I can understand from the sparse documentation, this event is sent automatically by the system and provides some support for assisted UI change.
However, I'd feel more comfortable using a more direct approach, i.e. where e.g. a window object could register/subscribe to receive notifications (either events or callbacks) upon particular events and another part of the code is sending out these notifications when required. I could do this in C++ using my own code, however I guess if wxWidgets already supports something like that, I should make use of it. However I haven't found anything in that regards.
So, the question is: does wxWidgets support this kind of notification system (or similar alternatives) or would I be best served coding my own?
AFAIK there is nothing directly usable in wxWidgets, but doing it on your own seems easy.
What I would do:
Create a wxEvtHandler-descendent class to hold the list of available "clients" in the network. Let this class have a wxCriticalSection, and use a wxCriticalSectionLocker for that in all methods that add or delete "clients".
Create a worker thread class by inheriting wxThread to handle your UDP datagrams, using blocking calls. The thread should directly call methods of the client list object whenever a client has to be added or removed. In these methods update the list of clients, and ::wxPostEvent() an event to itself (this will execute the whole notification calls in the main GUI thread).
Handle the event in the client list class, and notify all listeners that the list of clients has changed. The observer pattern seems to me a good fit. You could either call a method of all registered listeners directly, or send a wxCommandEvent to them.
Have you tried calling Update() on the widget(s) that change? Once you update the contents of the combo box, call Update(), and the contents should update.