As title, is there any way to iterate or display Apache velocity template attributes?
for example, I have following code :
<code>
${ctx.messages.headerMessage}
</code>
And I want to know how many other attributes the variable ${ctx} has
It's only possible to discover and to loop on an object properties (that is, the ones with getters and/or setters) if you can add a new tool to your Velocity context. If you can't, you're rather stuck.
There are several ways to do this, I illustrate below how to do this with commons-beanutils.
First, add Apache commons-beanutils in your class path, and add it to your Velocity context from Java:
import org.apache.commons.beanutils.PropertyUtils;
...
context.put("beans", new PropertyUtils());
...
One remark: if you do not have access to the Java part, but if by chance commons-beanutils is already in the classpath, there is one hakish way of having access to it: #set($beans = $foo.class.forName('org.apache.commons.beanutils.PropertyUtils').newInstance()).
Then, let's say that I have the following object:
class Foo
{
public boolean isSomething() { return true; }
public String getName() { return "Nestor"; }
}
which is present in my context under $foo. Using your newly $beans properties introspector, you can do:
#set ($properties = $beans.getPropertyDescriptors($foo.class))
#foreach ($property in $properties)
$property.name ($property.propertyType) = $property.readMethod.invoke($foo)
#end
This will produce:
bar (boolean) = true
class (class java.lang.Class) = class Foo
name (class java.lang.String) = Robert
(you'll need to filter out the class property, of course)
One last remark, though. Templates are for coding the View layer of an MVC application, and doing such a generic introspection of objects in them is rather inadequate in the view layer. You're far better of moving all this introspection code on the Java side.
Related
As input I have a list of Books. As output I expect a SimilarBookCollection.
A SimilarBookCollection has an author, publishYear and list of Books. The SimilarBookCollection can't be created if the author of the books is different or if the publishYear is different.
The solution so far in PHP:
client.php
----
$arrBook = array(...); // array of books
$objValidator = new SimilarBookCollectionValidator($arrBook);
if ($objValidator->IsValid()) {
$objSimilarBookCollection = new SimilarBookCollection($arrBook);
echo $objSimilarBookCollection->GetAuthor();
}
else {
echo 'Invalid input';
}
SimilarBookCollection.php
---
class SimilarBookCollection() {
public function SimilarBookCollection(array $arrBook) {
$objValidator = new SimilarBookCollectionValidator($arrBook);
if ($objValidator->IsValid()) {
throw new Exception('Invalid books to create collection');
}
$this->author = $arrBook[0]->GetAuthor();
$this->publishYear = $arrBook[0]->GetPublishYear();
$this->books = $arrBook;
}
public function GetAuthor() {
return $this->author;
}
public function GetPublishYear() {
return $this->publishYear;
}
public function GetBooks() {
return $this->books;
}
}
SimilarBookCollectionValidator.php
---
class SimilarBookCollectionValidator() {
public function IsValid() {
$this->ValidateAtLeastOneBook();
$this->ValidateSameAuthor();
$this->ValidateSameYear();
return $this->blnValid;
}
... //actual validation routines
}
The goal is to have a "special" collection with only books that have the same author and publishYear. The idea is to easily access the repeating information like author or year from the object.
How would you name the SimilarBookCollection? The current name is to
generic. Using a name like SameYearAuthorBookCollection looks a bit
long and strange(if more conditions will be added then name will increase)
Would you use a Validator in SimilarBookCollection constructor using a
defensive programming style?
Would you change the design of the code? If yes how?
It all depends ;)
So if I were to aim for a generic adaptable solution I would do the following:
Validator in constructor
On one hand you are validating twice; that is informative in case of a broken precondition/contract (not giving a valid list), but is double the code to run - for what purpose exactly?
If you want to use this in a system depends on its size, how critical it is, product phase, and likely more criterias.
But then it also is controller logic fitted into a model meaning you are spreading your code around.
I would not put it in the constructor.
Name / Design
I would say keep the BookCollection generic as it is, and have any validation strictly in the controller space, instead of bloating the collection which essentially seems to be an array with the extra field of author.
If you want to differentiate between different collection types use either (multiple) inheritance or some sort of additional field "collectionType"; the former if you expect many derivatives or varying functionality to come (also keeps the logic where different nicely separated).
You could also consider your collection as a set on which you perform queries and for convenience's sake you could maintain some sort of meta data like $AuthorCount = N, $publicationDates = array(...) from which you can quickly derive the collection's nature. This approach would also keep your validator-code minimal (or non-existent), as it'd be implicitly in the collection and you could just do the validation in the controller keeping the effective logic behind it clearly visible.
That would also make it more comfortable for you in the future. But the question really is what you want and need it for, and what changes you expect, because you are supposed to fit your design to your requirements and likely changes.
For your very particular problem the constraints as I understand are as follows:
There is only one collection type class in the system at any given
point in time.
The class's items have several attributes, and for a particular, possibly changing subset of these (called identical attributes), the collection only accepts item lists where the chosen attributes of all items are identical.
The class provides getters for all identical attributes
The class must not be usable in any other way than the intended way.
If not for point 1 I would use a generic base class that is either parametrized (ie you tell it upon instantiation which is the set of identical attributes) or uses multiple inheritance (or in php traits) to compose arbitrary combinations with the needed interfaces. Children might rely on the base class but use a predefined subset of the identical attributes.
The parametrized variant might look something as follows:
class BookCollection {
public function __construct($book_list, $identical_fields=array())
{
if (empty($book_list))
{
throw new EmptyCollectionException("Empty book list");
}
$default = $book_list[0];
$this->ia = array();
foreach($identical_fields as $f)
{
$this->ia[$f] = $default->$f;
}
foreach($book_list as $book)
{
foreach($identical_fields as $f)
{
if ($this->ia[$f] !== $book->$f)
{
throw new NotIdenticalFieldException("Field $f is not identical for all");
}
}
}
$this->book_list = $book_list;
}
public function getIdentical($key)
{
$this->ia[$key];
}
}
final class BC_by_Author extends BookCollection{
public function __construct($book_list)
{
parent::__construct($book_list,array('author'));
}
public function getAuthor(){ $this->ia['author']; }
}
or fooling around with abstract and final types (not sure if it's valid like this)
abstract class BookCollection{
public final function __construct($book_list){...}
abstract public function getIdenticalAttributes();
}
final class BC_by_Author {
public function getIdenticalAttributes(){ return array('author'); }
public function getAuthor(){ return $this->ia['author']; }
}
If you rely on getters that do not necessarily match the field names I would go for multiple inheritance/traits.
The naming then would be something like BC_Field1Field2Field3.
Alternatively or additionally, you could also use exactly the same classname but develop your solutions in different namespaces, which would mean you wouldn't have to change your code when you change the namespace, plus you can keep it short in the controllers.
But because there will only ever be one class, I would name it BookCollection and not unnecessarily discuss it any further.
Because of constraint 4, the white box constraint, the given book list must be validated by the class itself, ie in the constructor.
I have a base class ReportElement which has type property:
public abstract class ReportElement {
private ReportElementType type;
public ReportElementType getType() {
return type;
}
public void setType(ReportElementType type) {
this.type = type;
}
}
ReportElementType is just an enum with specified code and i18nKey properties for each element. I have a couple of subclasses of ReportElement, each of them introducing their own properties. One of them is Plot:
public class Plot extends ReportElement {
public Plot() {
setType(ReportElementType.PLOT);
}
private Collection<Parameter> parameters = new ArrayList<Parameter>();
public Collection<Parameter> getParameters() {
return parameters;
}
}
On some page I needed to display a collection of different ReportElement instances, so I just used struts2 select tag:
<s:select list="myElements" listKey="type.code" listValue="type.i18nKey" size="20"/>
This worked like a charm for every element except for Plot instaces. Instead of invoking getType().getCode() or getType().getI18nKey() plain toString() was invoked on every instance of Plot! After several hours of fun debugging I noticed that during tag evaluation Plot's getParameters() method is called! So it seems struts was trying to evaluate type.code and type.i18nKey using getParameters() method! Failing to do that it ignored the existence of the properties, that I have clearly specified for usage!
After renaming getParameters to a kind of odd name like getParamms the problem gone. Also the problem hasn't occured when using iterator tag together with property tag instead of select tag.
Does anyone have an idea WHY struts select tag uses parameters property of my bean, when I have clearly specified what property should be used? Is it some "cool" feature or a bug?
P.S. I use struts 2.2.3.1
The argument used in all the FreeMarker templates representing a tag's parameters is called parameters. By providing a parameters property that takes precedence, S2 was unable to get to the object on the stack containing the tag's parameters.
It's neither a cool feature nor a bug, it's just how the templates are implemented. Checking the template source may have saved the few hours of debugging.
Found corresponding issue in struts JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-3268
2.3 is specified as fix version.
Let me give an idea of what I wish to do: I have a structure or class called student, which contains variables like
int roll_no
and
int reg_no
If the user wishes to add a new variable like char name at run time how can it be done?
Based on the word "Structure" and the variable declarations, I'm going to guess this question is about some flavor of C. How exactly to do this will depend on the language, but as a general rule, if the language is compiled (e.g. C/C++, Java), this is not possible. If the language is interpreted (e.g. Python), this might sort of be possible, like this:
class MyObj:
message = "Hi there"
a = MyObj() # Creating a new instance variable
a.name = "Bill" # Adding a new attribute
Here we've added the name attribute to the a object only, and not the entire class. I'm not sure how you're go about that for the whole class.
But really, the answer to your question is "Don't". You should think about your program and the objects you're using enough to know what fields you will and won't need. If you'll want to have a name field at some point in your program, put it in the class declaration. If you don't want it to have a value on object creation, use a sensible default like null.
Edit
Based on your comments, there are a couple of ways to approach this. I'm still not entirely clear on what you want, but I think one of these cases should cover it. Of the languages I know, Python is the most flexible at runtime:
Python
In Python, a class is just another kind of object. Class variables (check out this question too) belong to the class itself, and are inherited by any instances you create:
class MyObj:
a = 2 # A class variable
b = "a string" # Another one
ObjInstance = MyObj() # Creating an instance of this class
print ObjInstance.a # Output: "2"
ObjInstance.a = 3 # You can access and change the value of class variables *for this instance*
print MyObj.a, ObjInstance.a # Outputs "2 3". We've changed the value of a for the instance
MyObj.c = (3,4) # You can add a new class variable at runtime
# Any instance objects inherit the new variable, whether they already exist or not.
print MyObj.c, ObjInstance.c # Outputs "(3, 4) (3, 4)"
You can use this to add attributes to every instance of your class, but they will all have the same value until you change them. If you want to add an attribute to just one instance, you can do this:
ObjInstance.d = "I belong to ObjInstance!"
print ObjInstance.d # Output: "I belong to ObjInstance!"
print MyObj.d # Throws "AttributeError: class MyObj has no attribute 'd'"
One drawback to using Python is that it can be kinda slow. If you want to use a compiled language it will be slightly more complicated, and it will be harder to get the same functionality that I mentioned above. However, I think it's doable. Here's how I would do it in Java. The implementation in C/C++ will be somewhat different.
Java
Java's class attributes (and methods) are called (and declared) static:
class MyObj {
public static int a = 2;
public static String b = "a string";
}
static variables are normally accessed through the class name, as in Python. You can get at them through an instance, but I believe that generates a warning:
System.out.println(MyObj.a); //Outputs "2"
MyObj ObjInst = new MyObj();
System.out.println(ObjInst.a); //Outputs "2" with a warning. Probably.
You can't add attributes to a Java object at runtime:
ObjInst.c = "This will break"; // Throws some exception or other
However, you can have a HashMap attribute, static or not, which you can add entries to at runtime that act like attributes. (This is exactly what Python does, behind the scenes.) For example:
class MyObj {
private HashMap<String, Object> att = new HashMap<String, Object>();
public void setAttribute(String name, Object value) {
att.put(name, value);
}
public Object getAttribute(String name) {
return att.get(name);
}
}
And then you can do things like:
ObjInst.setAttribute("name", "Joe");
System.out.println(ObjInst.getAttribute("name"));
Notice that I did not declare att static above, so in this case each instance of the MyObj class has this attribute, but the class itself does not. If I had declared it static, the class itself would have one copy of this hash. If you want to get really fancy, you can combine the two cases:
class MyObj {
private static HashMap<String, Object> classAtt = new HashMap<String, Object>();
private HashMap<String, Object> instAtt = new HashMap<String, Object>();
public static void setClassAttribute(String name, Object value) {
classAtt.put(name, value);
}
public void setInstAttribute(String name, Object value) {
instAtt.put(name, value);
}
public Object getAttribute(String name) {
// Check if this instance has the attribute first
if (this.instAtt.containsKey(name) {
return instAtt.get(name);
}
// Get the class value if not
else {
return classAtt.get(name);
}
}
}
There are a few details I've left out, like handling the case of the HashMaps not having the value you're asking for, but you can figure out what to do there. As one last note, you can do in Python exactly what I did here in Java with a dict, and that might be a good idea if the attribute names will be strings. You can add an attribute as a string in Python but it's kind of hard; look at the documentation on reflection for more info.
Good luck!
Say I am calling a third-party API which returns a Post, and I want to take that and transfer properties from it into my own Post class. I have in the past had a method like public static my.Post build(their.Post post) which maps the properties how I want.
However, is it better/valid to have a constructor that accepts their.Post and does the property mapping in there? Or should there always be a separate class that does the converting, and leaves my.Post in a more POJO state?
Thanks for your thoughts!
These answers always starts with "it depends."
People generally argue against using public static methods, based on the fact that it is hard to mock them (I don't buy into that bandwagon).
This comes down to design, do you want their post to be part of your class? If you add it as a "copy" constructor then it will now be part of your class and you are dependent on changes to post. If they change their post, your code has to adapt.
The better solution is to decouple it. You would need to find some extenal method to map the two. One way is to use a static builder method (like you mentioned) or if you want to take it a step further, a more complicated solution would be to extract the information you want from their post into some type of generic collection class. Then create a constructor that will accept that constructor class. This way if they change their design your class stays in tact and all you have to do is update the mappings from their post to your generic representation of it.
public class MyPost{
public MyPost(ICollectionOfProperties props){
//copy all properties.
}
}
public static class TheirPostExtensions{
public static ICollectionOfProperties ExtractProperties(this TheirPost thePost){
return new CollectionOfProperties(){
A = thePost.PropA,
B = thePost.PropB
};
}
}
public class Example{
public Example(){
TheirPost tp = new TheirPost();
ICollectionOfProperties props = tp.ExtractProperties();
MyPost mp = new MyPost(props);
}
}
Can a class return an object of itself.
In my example I have a class called "Change" which represents a change to the system, and I am wondering if it is in anyway against design principles to return an object of type Change or an ArrayList which is populated with all the recent Change objects.
Yes, a class can have a method that returns an instance of itself. This is quite a common scenario.
In C#, an example might be:
public class Change
{
public int ChangeID { get; set; }
private Change(int changeId)
{
ChangeID = changeId;
LoadFromDatabase();
}
private void LoadFromDatabase()
{
// TODO Perform Database load here.
}
public static Change GetChange(int changeId)
{
return new Change(changeId);
}
}
Yes it can. In fact, that's exactly what a singleton class does. The first time you call its class-level getInstance() method, it constructs an instance of itself and returns that. Then subsequent calls to getInstance() return the already-constructed instance.
Your particular case could use a similar method but you need some way of deciding the list of recent changes. As such it will need to maintain its own list of such changes. You could do this with a static array or list of the changes. Just be certain that the underlying information in the list doesn't disappear - this could happen in C++ (for example) if you maintained pointers to the objects and those objects were freed by your clients.
Less of an issue in an automatic garbage collection environment like Java since the object wouldn't disappear whilst there was still a reference to it.
However, you don't have to use this method. My preference with what you describe would be to have two clases, changelist and change. When you create an instance of the change class, pass a changelist object (null if you don't want it associated with a changelist) with the constructor and add the change to that list before returning it.
Alternatively, have a changelist method which creates a change itself and returns it, remembering the change for its own purposes.
Then you can query the changelist to get recent changes (however you define recent). That would be more flexible since it allows multiple lists.
You could even go overboard and allow a change to be associated with multiple changelists if so desired.
Another reason to return this is so that you can do function chaining:
class foo
{
private int x;
public foo()
{
this.x = 0;
}
public foo Add(int a)
{
this.x += a;
return this;
}
public foo Subtract(int a)
{
this.x -= a;
return this;
}
public int Value
{
get { return this.x; }
}
public static void Main()
{
foo f = new foo();
f.Add(10).Add(20).Subtract(1);
System.Console.WriteLine(f.Value);
}
}
$ ./foo.exe
29
There's a time and a place to do function chaining, and it's not "anytime and everywhere." But, LINQ is a good example of a place that hugely benefits from function chaining.
A class will often return an instance of itself from what is sometimes called a "factory" method. In Java or C++ (etc) this would usually be a public static method, e.g. you would call it directly on the class rather than on an instance of a class.
In your case, in Java, it might look something like this:
List<Change> changes = Change.getRecentChanges();
This assumes that the Change class itself knows how to track changes itself, rather than that job being the responsibility of some other object in the system.
A class can also return an instance of itself in the singleton pattern, where you want to ensure that only one instance of a class exists in the world:
Foo foo = Foo.getInstance();
The fluent interface methods work on the principal of returning an instance of itself, e.g.
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("123");
sb.Append("456").Append("789");
You need to think about what you're trying to model. In your case, I would have a ChangeList class that contains one or more Change objects.
On the other hand, if you were modeling a hierarchical structure where a class can reference other instances of the class, then what you're doing makes sense. E.g. a tree node, which can contain other tree nodes.
Another common scenario is having the class implement a static method which returns an instance of it. That should be used when creating a new instance of the class.
I don't know of any design rule that says that's bad. So if in your model a single change can be composed of multiple changes go for it.