I am trying to expand upon the functionality of the Dismissible widget, which is a StatefulWidget, with its state being a private class.
Since I need to change the functionality inside of _DismissibleState, is it possible to somehow extend from it?
If not, is there an alternative or recommended way how to extend upon Flutter standard classes, apart from copying the whole source?
You can only extend a class that you can refer to. If _DismissibleState is declared in a different library, then you cannot refer to it, and so you can't extend it.
There is no workaround. That's what it means to be private.
You also cannot extend Dismissible to return a different state because its interface contains _DismissibleState createState(). There is no way you can return a state which satisfies that interface restriction, and you also cannot override it with a different return type unless that type also implements _DismissibleState, which was the original unsolvable problem.
I had to copy and paste the entire original file into a new one to make a simple change just in one line in a private class.
Related
I am trying to exclude specific subType of an interface using below expression. The CompositeAction extends Action interface. And there are other interfaces that extend Action interface. I want to include all sub types of Action interface except the classes that implement CompositeAction interface. I tried with below expression but its not excluded.
isSubTypeOf(Action.class)
.and(not(isSubTypeOf(named(CompositeAction.class.getName()))));
Also tried hasSuperType in place of isSubTypeOf, but that didn't work as well. Is it doable? Appreciate any help.
It should be as easy as:
isSubTypeOf(Action.class).and(not(isSubTypeOf(CompositeAction.class)))
In return, you get an ElementMatcher that you can supply a type to rather easily such that you can unit test this properly.
I've been trying to get Connections to use a customised adapter located at app/extensions/data/source/database/adapter/. I thought extending the Connections class and replacing
protected static $_adapters = 'data.source';
with
protected static $_adapters = 'adapter.extension.data.source';
and changing the connections class used at the top of app/config/bootstrap/connections.php to use app\extensions\data\Connections;
would be enough to get it started. However this just leads to a load of errors where the code is still trying to use the original Connections class.
Is there a simple way to achieve this, or do I have to recreate the entire set of classes from lithium/data in extensions with rewritten class references?
EDIT:
Turns out I was going about this the wrong way. After following Nate Abele's advice, Libraries::path('adapter') showed me where to correctly place the MySql.php file I'm trying to override ;-)
For dealing with how named classes (i.e. services, in the abstract) are located, you want to take a look at the Libraries class, specifically the paths() method, which allows you to define how class paths are looked up.
You can also look at the associated definitions, like locate() and $_paths, to give you an idea of what the default configuration looks like.
Finally, note that the Connections class is 'special' since it defines one path dynamically, based on the supplied configuration: http://li3.me/docs/api/lithium/1.0.x/lithium/data/Connections::_class()
This should help you reconfigure how your classes are organized without extending/overriding anything. Generally you shouldn't need to do that unless you need some drastically different behavior.
I have a Struts 1 application which works with Velocity as a template language. I shall replace Velocity with Freemarker, and am looking for something similar to 'toolbox.xml'-File from VelocityViewServlet. (there you can map names to Java Classes and, using these names it is possible to access methods and variables of various Java class in the Velocity template).
Does someone know, what is possible with Freemarker instead? So far I have found only information about the form beans...would be glad if someone can help....
For the utility functions and macros that are View-related (not Model-related), the standard practice is to implement them in FreeMarker and put them into one or more templates and #import (or #include) them. It's also possible to pull in TemplateDirectiveModel-s and TemplateMethodModelEx-es (these are similar to macros and function, but they are implemented in Java) into the template that you will #import/#inlcude as <#assign foo = 'com.example.Foo'?new()>.
As of calling plain static Java methods, you may use the ObjectWrapper's getStaticModels() (assuming it's a BeansWrapper subclass) and then get the required methods as TemplateMethodModelEx-es with staticModels.get("com.example.MyStatics"). Now that you have them, you can put them into the data-model (Velocity context) in the Controller, or pick methods from them in an #import-ed template, etc. Of course, you can also put POJO objects into the data-model so you can call their non-static methods.
The third method, which is not much different from putting things into the data-model is using "shared variables", which are variables (possibly including TemplateMethodModelEx-es and TemplateDirectiveModel-s) defined on the Configuration level.
Say you want to add a lengthOfFirstLine method to the predefined File class. Is it a better practice to modify the existing class, or make a new class that extends the File class with your new method?
EDIT -- Specifically, the situation is that a class is lacking one method in particular. I don't want to completely change the class, but rather augment it with that method.
It depends if the method is applicable to all elements of the class File. For instance, lengthOfFirstLine doesn't apply to binary files, so probably it doesn't belong in a generic File class, but if your class only represent text files, then it should go there.
For .NET languages, there's also the option of using extension methods. This way you don't have to "dirty up" a class by adding helper/utility methods to it, and no inheritance is required as well - you add functionality to a class by simply adding a using statement to your code.
Agree with Luis and Lester. If you are using .Net the extension methods are the way to go for this sort of functionality. But you should try not add LengthOfFirstLine to a base class if you can open all sorts of files such as binary files. You would sub class it to a FileClass and add the method to that.
Remember that the extension methods in .Net are syntactic sugar anyway. You can simulate it in your own language using Static classes and methods. This is what .Net does under the covers anyway.
For example have a static FileHelpers class and have various static helper methods on it. The first parameter for each of these static methods would be the File class. So you could call this using FileHelpers.GetLengthOfFirstLine(myOpenedFile)
For example, i see myself doing things like this latley, when i create an object, if it has a logical path of tasks then
public Class Link
{
public Link(String value)
{
callMethodA(value)
}
public void callMethodA(String data)
{
CallMethodB(doSomethingWithValue)
}
...
...
}
Here you can see, as soon as you instantiate the object, yours tasks get completed automatically.
The other way i can see of doing it is by creating an object, that doesnt link via the constructor, then calling methods individually.
Which was is right and why?
Thanks
Either way we can implement.
Recommended way is to do tasks like initialization stuffs within the constructor and rest of the things can be implemented by way of calling the method with its reference object.
for such scenario one should go for Factory pattern
for example:
Calendar.getInstance();
Constructor should do ALL that requires to make an object complete. That is, if without calling method callMethodA , if the object is incomplete then callMethodA must be called from constructor itself. If the callMethodA is optional API then the user of class Link can call the method when he wants.
I prefer second method. Constructor's job is to initialize the class members. Any modification to change the state of the object needs to be done seperately by member functions.
As long as the objects that are created do not have nothing in common the current way of creating them is fine. Factory Method or Abstract Factory pattern makes sense when there's similarity between created objects. They'll help you isolate the parts that are always the same and moving parts that define differences between objects.
It depends on business logic involved. Both ways are practical. If you want to simply initiate instance specific data, then better to do it in constructor method itself which is more logical and simple. It will save calling other methods explicitly unnecessarily. If instanciating your data is based on certain buisiness condition, then it is good to have main functionality in separate method and then conditionally call it from constructor. This is easy to manage in such scenario.
A constructor is meant to bring the object in the correct initial state. So use it for that purpose. As a general rule of thumb, only use a constructor to set properties. Basic calculations are also ok.
I would not recommend calling very time consuming methods, or methods that are likely to throw exceptions (like calling a webservice or access a file).
When you need to do very special things to bring the object in its initial state, make the constructor private and use a static method to create the object.