I am looking for specialized singleton implementation, probably I might be using wrong terminology and hence looking for expert suggestion. Here is my scenario:
There is common code which can be called by ComponentA or ComponentB. I need to push telemetry data from the common code. Telemetry needs to have information that whether this common code get called by ComponentA or ComponentB.
So common code will have just this line of code:
telemetry.pushData(this._area, data);
where this._area tells the telemetry data is getting pushed for which component
I need to push telemetry data from multiple places so it would be good if object got created once and used through out the code lifetime
One option I can think of passing component context to the common code which in mind doesn't look right, hence looking for suggestion what kind of pattern one should use in this case?
This is what I am thinking
// Telemetry.ts file present in shared code
export class Telemetry extends Singleton {
public constructor() {
super();
}
public static instance(): Telemetry {
return super.instance<Telemetry>(Telemetry);
}
public publishEvent(data): void {
if (!this.area) {
throw new Error("Error: Initialize telemetry class with right area");
}
pushtelemetryData(this.area, data);
}
public area: string;
}
// Create Telemetry object from component A
Telemetry.instance().area = "ComponentA";
// Shared code will call telemetry publishEvent
Telemetry.instance().publishEvent(data);
Thanks
It's not a good pattern to use in TypeScript where you would generally inject dependencies.
If you must absolutely do it then you can do it by faking it somewhat:
namespace Telemetry {
var instance : SingletonSomething;
export function push(data: Any) : void {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new SingletonSomething();
}
instance.push(data);
}
class SingletonSomething() { ... }
}
and then you could call
Telemetry.push(data);
You can imitate the singleton pattern in typescript easily:
class Telemetry {
private static instance: Telemetry;
public static getInstance(): Telemetry {
if (Telemetry.instance == null) {
Telemetry.instance = new Telemetry();
}
return Telemetry.instance;
}
...
}
If you have your code in some sort of closure (module, namespace, etc) then you can replace the static member with:
let telemetryInstance: Telemetry;
export class Telemetry {
public static getInstance(): Telemetry {
if (telemetryInstance == null) {
telemetryInstance = new Telemetry();
}
return telemetryInstance;
}
...
}
But then you can also replace the static method with:
let telemetryInstance: Telemetry;
export function getTelemetryInstance(): Telemetry {
if (telemetryInstance == null) {
telemetryInstance = new Telemetry();
}
return telemetryInstance;
}
export class Telemetry {
...
}
At this point, in case you are using some sort of closure, you might ask yourself if you really need the class at all?
If you use this as a module:
// telemetry.ts
export interface TelemetryData {
...
}
export function pushData(data: TelemetryData): void {
...
}
Then you get exactly what you're looking for, and this is more of the "javascript way" of doing it.
Edit
In the telemetry module there's no need to know the users of it.
If the Telemetry.pushData function needs to have information about the object that called it then define an interface for it:
// telemetry.ts
export interface TelemetryData {
...
}
export interface TelemetryComponent {
name: string;
...
}
export function pushData(data: TelemetryData, component: TelemetryComponent): void {
...
}
Then in the other modules, where you use it:
// someModule.ts
import * as Telemetry from "./telemetry";
class MyComponent implement Telemetry.TelemetryComponent {
// can also be a simple string property
public get name() {
return "MyComponent";
}
fn() {
...
Telemetry.pushData({ ... }, this);
}
}
2nd Edit
Because you are using a module system, your module files are enough to make singletons, there's no need for a class to achieve that.
You can do this:
// telemetry.ts
let area: string;
export interface TelemetryData {
...
}
export function setArea(usedArea: string) {
area = usedArea;
}
export function pushData(data: TelemetryData): void {
...
}
Then:
Telemetry.setArea("ComponentA");
...
Telemetry.publishEvent(data);
The telemetry module will be created only once per page, so you can treat the entire module as a singleton.
Export only the functions that are needed.
Related
Good day.
I am trying to preserve a property of ItemViewModel via config helper. I am able to successfully save the property (conf directory with appropriate .properties file is generated), however upon next start, the property does not restore its value, just remains null. Here's a sample code to demonstrate my issue:
import javafx.beans.property.SimpleStringProperty
import tornadofx.*
data class Foo(val doNotPreserveMe: String, val preserveMe: String)
class FooModel : ItemViewModel<Foo>() {
val doNotPreserveMe = bind { item?.doNotPreserveMe?.toProperty() }
val preserveMe = bind { SimpleStringProperty(item?.preserveMe, "pm", config.string("pm")) }
}
class FooApp : App(FooView::class)
class FooView : View() {
private val model = FooModel()
override val root = form {
fieldset {
field("Do not preserve me") { textfield(model.doNotPreserveMe).required() }
field("Preserve me") { textfield(model.preserveMe).required() }
button("Do something") {
enableWhen(model.valid)
action {
model.commit {
// ...
with(config) {
set("pm" to model.preserveMe.value)
save()
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Any ideas on why the model is not restoring the value?
Each Component has it's own config store, which is backed by a separate file. Either make sure to use the same config file, or the app global config file.
You can refer to other component's config store, so one solution would be to let the View access the ViewModel's config store like this:
button("Do something") {
enableWhen(model.valid)
action {
model.commit {
// ...
with(model.config) {
set("pm" to model.preserveMe.value)
save()
}
}
}
}
However, there is a much simpler and more contained solution, which is simply to handle save in the FooModel's onCommit callback
override fun onCommit() {
with(config) {
set("pm" to preserveMe.value)
save()
}
}
In this case you'd simply call model.commit() in the button callback.
You can also use a common, or even global config object. Either use a Controller's config store, or the global store. To use the global config object, just refer to app.config in both the model and the view.
Let's assume I have a global state class that contains a TimeFrame class which has some useful properties
export class StateContainer {
public timeframe: TimeFrame;
public setTimeframe(startTime: Date, endTime: Date) {
// treat this.timeframe as immutable
this.timeframe = { startTime: startTime, endTime: endTime };
}
}
export class TimeFrame {
public readonly startTime: Date;
public readonly endTime: Date;
}
Then, I need to consume this state elsewhere, so I do so via DI and then use the bindingEngine.propertyObserver to get changes on the timeframe object as one would do.
However, I would like be able to do something similar to the following, if it's possible:
#autoinject
export class Display {
#observable
timeFrame: TimeFrame = this.state.timeframe;
constructor(private state: StateContainer) {
}
timeFrameChanged(newValue: TimeFrame, oldValue: TimeFrame) {
...
// everytime this.state.timeFrame is changed via setTimeFrame()
// this change handler should fire, and so should any
// bindings from this component for this.timeFrame
}
}
However, when I do the previous, I only get timeFrameChanged(...) notifications on the inital creation, not whenever I call setTimeFrame(). Am I doing something wrong or is this not possible?
Yes, you are doing something wrong, I think you are misunderstanding how the observable decorator and the corresponding timeFrameChanged method are meant to be used.
Let's take it bit by bit. Take a look at these lines:
#observable
timeFrame: TimeFrame = this.state.timeframe;
timeFrameChanged(newValue: TimeFrame, oldValue: TimeFrame) { ... }
The observable decorator tells Aurelia that whenever the property to which it is applied changes, execute the corresponding method. Unless otherwise configured, the corresponding method is nameOfInvolvedProperty + "Changed" (in this case, as you are correctly doing, timeFrameChanged).
However, you are never actually changing the value of that property! If you actually changed that property, it would work:
<button click.delegate="changeProp()">
Change prop
</button>
and the VM:
changeProp() {
this.timeFrame = null;
this.timeFrame = this.state.timeframe;
}
Now you'd see that the handler correctly fires.
But in your code, this property is only ever assigned once, here:
timeFrame: TimeFrame = this.state.timeframe;
Remember, this is just dereferencing. In other words, this code tells the app to take the value of this.state.timeframe, store the momentary value of it in that variable and forget about this.state.timeframe. So it does not get updated whenever this.state.timeframe is updated.
As described in the documentation, you can configure the observable decorator to some extent, however, to my knowledge, there is no way to configure it in such a way that set it up to observe nested properties (or maybe it's just me not knowing how to do that).
Even if it was possible, I think a cleaner way to deal with such situations would be to use an event aggregator. This enables you to employ a subscription mechanism - whenever the value you are interested in changes, you publish an event and whichever component is interested in that change can subscribe to it and update itself accordingly.
A simple implementation:
import { Router, RouterConfiguration } from 'aurelia-router';
import { autoinject } from 'aurelia-framework';
import { observable } from 'aurelia-binding';
import { StateContainer } from './state-container';
import { EventAggregator, Subscription } from 'aurelia-event-aggregator';
#autoinject
export class App {
subscription: Subscription = null;
constructor(private state: StateContainer, private eventAggregator: EventAggregator) {
}
activate() {
this.subscription = this.eventAggregator.subscribe('state:timeframe', (e) => {
console.log('Timeframe changed!', e);
});
}
deactivate() {
// Make sure to dispose of the subscription to avoid memory leaks.
this.subscription.dispose();
}
change() {
this.state.setTimeframe(new Date(), new Date());
}
}
And StateContainer:
import { TimeFrame } from "./time-frame";
import { autoinject } from "aurelia-framework";
import { EventAggregator } from "aurelia-event-aggregator";
#autoinject
export class StateContainer {
public timeframe: TimeFrame = null;
constructor(private eventAggregator: EventAggregator) {
}
public setTimeframe(startTime: Date, endTime: Date) {
// treat this.timeframe as immutable
this.timeframe = { startTime: startTime, endTime: endTime };
this.eventAggregator.publish('state:timeframe', this.timeframe);
}
}
Hope that helps.
In my code I often have to copy data from json to instantiate class in constructor.
function append(dst, src) {
for (let key in src) {
if (src.hasOwnProperty(key) {
dst[key] = src[key];
}
}
};
export class DataClass {
id: number;
title: string;
content: string;
img: null | string;
author: string;
// no methods, just raw data from API
}
export class AdoptedClass1 extends DataClass {
// has same fields as DataClass
showcase: string;
constructor (data: DataClass) {
append(data, this);
// do some stuff
}
}
// similar code for AdoptedClass2
I'm wondering if I can replace append function call in constructor with object spread operator
For your need I'll prefer to use Object.assign(this, data) over your custom made append function. Nevertheless have a look at the documentation to understand the limitation of it.
Back to your main question: it is not possible to use the spread operator to do what you want. Many people are interested in that feature but it has been put on hold as you can see here.
To get closer of what you ask we can refactor your code a little:
export class DataClass {
id: number
title: string
content: string
img: null | string
author: string
constructor(data: DataClass) {
Object.assign(this, data)
}
}
export class AdoptedClass1 extends DataClass {
showcase: string
constructor (data: DataClass) {
super(data)
// do some stuff
}
}
By simply adding the constructor to the data class you will be allowed to use super(data) in children and IMHO the code will be a lot cleaner.
You can use object spread operator by replacing this line:
append(data,this)
with this line
data = {...data, ...this};
I'm trying to use the createjs EventDispatcher as a way to dispatchEvents from a class. I'm extending my class using createjs.EventDispatcher and using the dispatchEvent to trigger the event.
I get the following error when this line isthis.dispatchEvent(createJSEvent); executed:
Uncaught InvalidStateError: Failed to execute 'dispatchEvent' on 'EventTarget': The event provided is null.
Simplified TypeScript code to demonstrate what I'd like to do:
export class deviceOrientation extends createjs.EventDispatcher {
constructor() {
super();
// wait 2 seconds and then fire testDispatch
setTimeout(this.testDispatch(), 2000);
}
testDispatch():void {
var createJSEvent:createjs.Event = new createjs.Event("change", true, true);
this.dispatchEvent(createJSEvent);
}
}
// This is the starting function
export function appExternalModuleTest(): void {
let _deviceOrientation: deviceOrientation;
_deviceOrientation = new deviceOrientation();
_deviceOrientation.addEventListener("change", () => this.changeOrientation());
//_deviceOrientation.on("progress", () => this.changeOrientation());
}
export function changeOrientationi(event: Event): void {
console.log('orienationHasChanged ');
}
I'm using easeljs-0.8.1.min.js
I'm not sure if this is possible with CreateJS. Is there a better approach?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
The problem looks strange, because I do almost the same in my project and don't have any problems.
In a nutshell, I have a d.ts file for createjs classes declaration and I use these declarations in my "normal" typescript classes.
For example:
d.ts:
declare module createjs
{
export class EventDispatcher
{
addEventListener(type: string, listener: any, useCapture?: boolean): void;
removeEventListener(type: string, listener: any, useCapture?: boolean): void;
removeAllEventListener(type?: string): void;
dispatchEvent(event: Event): boolean;
}
export class Event
{
public type: string;
public target: any;
public currentTarget: any;
constructor(type: string, bubbling?: boolean, cancelable?: boolean);
clone(): Event;
}
}
Normal class:
module flashist
{
export class TestEventDispatcher extends createjs.EventDispatcher
{
public constructor()
{
super();
}
public testDispatch(): void
{
var tempEvent: createjs.Event = new createjs.Event("test");
this.dispatchEvent(tempEvent);
}
}
}
And somewhere else in the code you should create an instance of the TestEventDispatcher class. Something like:
this.testDispatcher = new TestEventDispatcher();
this.testDispatcher.addEventListener("test", (event: createjs.Event) => alert("Test Event Listener"));
this.testDispatcher.testDispatch();
I've just tested the code and it works for me.
The only idea I have is to make sure that the easel.js file is loaded before your main app files.
It looks like this is not allowed. requireJS is throwing an error on the following (this post is different as it was resolved with internal modules):
element.ts:
import runProperties = require('./run-properties');
export class Element {
public static factory (element : IElement) : Element {
switch (element.type) {
case TYPE.RUN_PROPERTIES :
return new runProperties.RunProperties().deserialize(<runProperties.IRunProperties>element);
}
return null;
}
}
run-properties.ts:
import element = require('./element');
export class RunProperties extends element.Element implements IRunProperties {
}
No, modules can't have circular dependencies unless they are in the same file. Each file is being processed in sequence, synchronously, so the full file definition (including all of the exports for example) hasn't been completed when it goes to second file, which immediately tries to require/reference the first file, and so on.
Normally, you can break a circular dependency by introducing an interface or base class into a common definition file(s) (basically interfaces only) and having the other files use that as a common "interface" rather than directly referencing the classes. This is a typical pattern in many platforms.
I have same issue, I was able to fix it by creating factory class that allows registration of child classes and used Generics for instantiation.
Reference: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/generics.html#using-class-types-in-generics
See sample code below:
Base Class (abstract.control.ts)
export type AbstracControlOptions = {
key?:string;
}
export abstract class AbstractControl {
key:string;
constructor(options:AbstracControlOptions){
this.key = options.key;
}
}
Parent Class (container.ts)
import { AbstractControl, AbstracControlOptions } from './abstract.control';
import { Factory } from './factory';
export { AbstracControlOptions };
export abstract class Container extends AbstractControl {
children: AbstractControl[] = [];
constructor(options: AbstracControlOptions) {
super(options);
}
addChild(options: { type: string }) {
var Control:any = Factory.ControlMap[options.type];
if (Control) {
this.children.push(Factory.create(Control, options));
}
}
}
I don't have to import the child classes any more, because I'm using factory.ts to instantiate the child classes.
Factory Class(factory.ts)
import {AbstractControl, AbstracControlOptions} from './abstract.control';
type ControlMap<T extends AbstractControl> = {
[type:string]:T
};
export class Factory{
static ControlMap: ControlMap<any> = {};
static create<T extends AbstractControl>(c: { new ({}): T; }, options: AbstracControlOptions): T {
return new c(options);
}
}
Although class constructor seems to be called at c: { new ({}): T } but it does not actually calls it. But gets the reference to the constructor via new operator. The parameter {} to the constructor in my case is required because the base class AbstractControl requires it.
(1) Child Class(layout.ts)
import { Factory } from './factory';
import { Container, AbstracControlOptions } from './container';
export type LayoutlOptions = AbstracControlOptions & {
type:"layout";
}
export class Layout extends Container {
type: string = "layout";
constructor(options:LayoutlOptions) {
super(options);
}
}
Factory.ControlMap["layout"] = Layout;
(2) Child Class(repeater.ts)
import { Factory } from './factory'
import { Container, AbstracControlOptions } from './container';
export type RepeaterOptions = AbstracControlOptions & {
type: "repeater";
}
export class Repeater extends Container {
type: string = "repeater";
constructor(options:RepeaterOptions) {
super(options);
}
}
Factory.ControlMap["repeater"] = Repeater;