I'm making a JComponentFactory and a subclass of that is a JLabelFactory. There is a create(Set listeners) method in JLabelFactory and what it's supposed to do is use the given method (below) to add each listener in the set to the created JLabel. I can do it this way:
protected boolean addSpecificListeners(JLabel label, Set<EventListener> listeners) {
for(EventListener e: listeners){
if(e instanceof MouseMotionListener){
label.addMouseMotionListener((MouseMotionListener)e);
}
else if(e instanceof MouseWheelListener){
label.addMouseWheelListener((MouseWheelListener)e);
}
else if....
}
}
This doesn't seem to be a smart way to me. Especially since I will have to go to all the possible Listener types for EVER JComponent I want to add listeners to. Is there a smarter way to do this?
Related
I am in the middle of learning Spring WebFlux. I am using a REST call using below code to parse the response:
private void parseJsonResponse(String folderId) throws IOException {
Mono<ObjectNode> theresponseMono = webClient.get()
.uri("/some/uri")
.retrieve().bodyToMono(ObjectNode.class);
ObjectNode node = new ObjectMapper().disable(DeserializationFeature.FAIL_ON_UNKNOWN_PROPERTIES)
.readValue(theresponseMono.share().block().toString(), ObjectNode.class);
//handle node object here.....
}
Question: Is theresponseMono.share().block() non-blocking here? If not, what can be done to make is completely non-blocking. I am looking for the relevant documentation on this as I want to learn it and not just looking for a yes or no. To summarize, I need to retrieve theresponseMono as non-blocking. Any guidance or any official documentation/link on this please? Thanks.
EDIT:
This is what I am trying to achieve:
Mono<ObjectNode> theresponseMono = webClient.get()
.uri("/some/uri")
.retrieve().bodyToMono(ObjectNode.class).flatMap(node -> {
if (node.get("list").get("entries").isArray()) {
for (JsonNode jsonNode : node.get("list").get("entries")) {
System.out.println(jsonNode);
}
}
});
Somehow I am not able to map using flatMap. What is missing here?
No since here you are blocking it. Right way would be to do
private Mono<ObjectNode> parseJsonResponse(String folderId) {
return webClient.get()
.uri("/some/rui")
.retrieve().bodyToMono(ObjectNode.class)
.flatMap(node-> {
// do your logic here
})
}
I would say everything what is in mono/flux must stay in mono/flux :) Anytime you call block its blocking your thread.
I have a question about handling deserialization exceptions in Spring Cloud Stream while processing batches (i.e. batch-mode: true).
Per the documentation here, https://docs.spring.io/spring-kafka/docs/2.5.12.RELEASE/reference/html/#error-handling-deserializer, (looking at the implementation of FailedFooProvider), it looks like this function should return a subclass of the original message.
Is the intent here that a list of both Foo's and BadFoo's will end up at the original #StreamListener method, and then it will be up to the code (i.e. me) to sort them out and handle separately? I suspect this is the case, as I've read that the automated DLQ sending isn't desirable for batch error handling, as it would resubmit the whole batch.
And if this is the case, what if there is more than one message type received by the app via different #StreamListener's, say Foo's and Bar's. What type should the value function return in that case? Below is the pseudo code to illustrate the second question?
#StreamListener
public void readFoos(List<Foo> foos) {
List<> badFoos = foos.stream()
.filter(f -> f instanceof BadFoo)
.map(f -> (BadFoo) f)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
// logic
}
#StreamListener
public void readBars(List<Bar> bars) {
// logic
}
// Updated to return Object and let apply() determine subclass
public class FailedFooProvider implements Function<FailedDeserializationInfo, Object> {
#Override
public Object apply(FailedDeserializationInfo info) {
if (info.getTopics().equals("foo-topic") {
return new BadFoo(info);
}
else if (info.getTopics().equals("bar-topic") {
return new BadBar(info);
}
}
}
Yes, the list will contain the function result for failed deserializations; the application needs to handle them.
The function needs to return the same type that would have been returned by a successful deserialization.
You can't use conditions with batch listeners. If the list has a mixture of Foos and Bars, they all go to the same listener.
I am working on disabling copy/paste option menus on xamarin forms Entry, I am able to disable copy option using IsPassword=true attribute but this attribute also converts the normal input field to password field, which is not a requirement.
<Entry IsPassword="true" Placeholder="Password" TextColor="Green" BackgroundColor="#2c3e50" />
Thanks in advance.
This has to do with how Forms functions. Using iOS as the example here, the CanPerform override referred to in the other answer's Bugzilla issue is using the UIMenuController as the withSender and not the UITextField itself that might otherwise be expected. This is because the EntryRenderer class is a ViewRenderer<TView, TNativeView> type and subsequently is using whatever TNativeView (in this case, the UITextView) has in its CanPerform. Because nothing is going to be overridden by default, one still sees all of the cut/copy/paste options in the UIMenuController.
As a result, there would be a couple options. You could first make the modification where if you don't want copy/paste but are fine with getting rid of everything else, you can use UIMenuController.SharedMenuController.SetMenuVisible(false, false) in a custom renderer inheriting from EntryRenderer. If you look around on SO, there are similar questions where this is a possible route.
Alternatively, you can create a "true" custom renderer inheriting from ViewRenderer<TView, TNativeView> as ViewRenderer<Entry, YourNoCopyPasteUITextFieldClassName>. The class inheriting from UITextField can then override CanPerform as something like follows:
public override bool CanPerform(Selector action, NSObject withSender)
{
if(action.Name == "paste:" || action.Name == "copy:" || action.Name == "cut:")
return false;
return base.CanPerform(action, withSender);
}
This will require more effort because the custom renderer will not have the same behavior as the EntryRenderer, but as Xamarin.Forms is now open source, you could look to it for some ideas as to how the EntryRenderer functions normally. Something similar would likely have to be done for Android.
Edit: For Android, you can probably use this SO answer as a starting point: How to disable copy/paste from/to EditText
Another custom renderer, this time inheriting from ViewRenderer<Entry, EditText>, and create a class inside of it like this (in the most basic form):
class Callback : Java.Lang.Object, ActionMode.ICallback
{
public bool OnActionItemClicked(ActionMode mode, IMenuItem item)
{
return false;
}
public bool OnCreateActionMode(ActionMode mode, IMenu menu)
{
return false;
}
public void OnDestroyActionMode(ActionMode mode)
{
}
public bool OnPrepareActionMode(ActionMode mode, IMenu menu)
{
return false;
}
}
Then, in your OnElementChanged method, you can set the native control and the CustomSelectionActionModeCallback value:
protected override void OnElementChanged(ElementChangedEventArgs<Entry> e)
{
base.OnElementChanged(e);
if (Control != null)
{
Control.CustomSelectionActionModeCallback = new Callback();
}
}
Doing something like the following appears to disable all of the copy/paste/cut functionality on the custom entry as far as the toolbar goes. However, you can still long click to show the paste button, to which I've poked around a bit hadn't found an answer yet beyond setting LongClickable to false. If I do find anything else in that regard, I'd make sure to update this.
I wrote some code in an MVC Framework that looks something like:
class Controller_Test extends Controller
{
public function action_index()
{
$obj = new MyObject();
$errors = array();
try
{
$results = $obj->doSomething();
}
catch(MyObject_Exception $e)
{
$e->getErrors();
}
catch(Exception $e)
{
$errors[] = $e->getMessage();
}
}
My friend argues that the Controller should know nothing about MyObject, and therefore I should not catch MyObject_Exception.
He argues that the code should do something like this instead:
class Controller_Test extends Controller
{
public function action_index()
{
$obj = new MyObject();
$errors = array();
if($obj->doSomething())
{
$results = $obj->getResults();
}
else
{
$errors = $obj->getErrors();
}
}
I definitely understand his approach, but feel as though state management can lead to unintended side effects.
What is the right or preferred approach?
Edit: mistakenly put $obj->getErrors() in MyObject_Exception catch clause instead of $e->getErrors();
The debate about exceptions vs. returned error codes is a long and bloody one.
His argument breaks down in that, by using a getErrors() function, you are learning information about the object. If that is your reason for using a boolean return to indicate success, then you are wrong. In order for the Controller to handle the error properly, it has to know about the object it was touching and what the specific error was. Was it a network error? Memory error? It has to know in some way or another.
I prefer the exception model because it's cleaner and allows me to handle more errors in a more controlled fashion. It also provides a clear cut way for the data relating to an exception to be passed.
However, I disagree with your use of a function like getErrors(). Any data pertaining to the exception that would help me handle it should be included with the exception. I should not have to go hunting into the object again to get information about what went wrong.
Did the network connection timeout? The exception should contain the host/port it tried to connect to, how long it waited, and any data from the lower networking levels.
Let's do this in example (in psuedo c#):
public class NetworkController {
Socket MySocket = null;
public void EstablishConnection() {
try {
this.MySocket = new Socket("1.1.1.1",90);
this.MySocket.Open();
} catch(SocketTimeoutException ex) {
//Attempt a Single Reconnect
}
catch(InvalidHostNameException ex) {
Log("InvalidHostname");
Exit();
}
}
}
Using his method:
public class NetworkController {
Socket MySocket = null;
public Boolean EstablishConnection() {
this.MySocket = new Socket("1.1.1.1",90);
if(this.MySocket.Open()) {
return true;
} else {
switch(this.MySocket.getError()) {
case "timeout":
// Reattempt
break;
case "badhost":
Log("InvalidHostname");
break;
}
}
}
}
Ultimately, you need to know what happened to the object to know how to respond to it, and there is no sense in using some convoluted if statement set or switch-case to determine that. Use the exceptions and love them.
EDIT: I accidentally the last half of a sentence.
In general, I would say that what's important is whether the controller understands the meaning of the exception and can handle it properly. In many cases (if not most), the controller will not know how to properly handle the exception, and so should not catch and handle it.
On the other hand, the controller might reasonably be permitted to understand some specific exception like a "DatabaseUnavailableException", even if it has no idea how or why MyObject used a database. The controller might be permitted to retry the call to MyObject a certain number of times, all without knowing about how MyObject is implemented.
First of all controller is not meant for handling the underlying exceptions thrown by classes.
Even if one occurs controller should halt saying something wrong at underlying error.
This way we make sure that controller does really and only do the job of flow control.
The other classes which give controller some output should be error free unless the error is very much controller specific.
I have a component with a custom model (extending the wicket standard Model class). My model loads the data from a database/web service when Wicket calls getObject().
This lookup can fail for several reasons. I'd like to handle this error by displaying a nice message on the web page with the component. What is the best way to do that?
public class MyCustomModel extends Model {
#Override
public String getObject() {
try {
return Order.lookupOrderDataFromRemoteService();
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.error("Failed silently...");
// How do I propagate this to the component/page?
}
return null;
}
Note that the error happens inside the Model which is decoupled from the components.
Handling an exception that happens in the model's getObject() is tricky, since by this time we are usually deep in the response phase of the whole request cycle, and it is too late to change the component hierarchy. So the only place to handle the exception is very much non-local, not anywhere near your component or model, but in the RequestCycle.
There is a way around that though. We use a combination of a Behavior and an IRequestCycleListener to deal with this:
IRequestCycleListener#onException allows you to examine any exception that was thrown during the request. If you return an IRequestHandler from this method, that handler will be run and rendered instead of whatever else was going on beforehand.
We use this on its own to catch generic stuff like Hibernate's StaleObjectException to redirect the user to a generic "someone else modified your object" page. If you
For more specific cases we add a RuntimeExceptionHandler behavior:
public abstract class RuntimeExceptionHandler extends Behavior {
public abstract IRequestHandler handleRuntimeException(Component component, Exception ex);
}
In IRequestCycleListener we walk through the current page's component tree to see whether any component has an instance of RuntimeExceptionHandler. If we find one, we call its handleRuntimeException method, and if it returns an IRequestHandler that's the one we will use. This way you can have the actual handling of the error local to your page.
Example:
public MyPage() {
...
this.add(new RuntimeExceptionHandler() {
#Override public IRequestHandler handleRuntimeException(Component component, Exception ex) {
if (ex instanceof MySpecialException) {
// just an example, you really can do anything you want here.
// show a feedback message...
MyPage.this.error("something went wrong");
// then hide the affected component(s) so the error doesn't happen again...
myComponentWithErrorInModel.setVisible(false); // ...
// ...then finally just re-render this page:
return new RenderPageRequestHandler(new PageProvider(MyPage.this));
} else {
return null;
}
}
});
}
Note: This is not something shipped with Wicket, we rolled our own. We simply combined the IRequestCycleListener and Behavior features of Wicket to come up with this.
Your model could implement IComponentAssignedModel, thus being able to get hold on the owning component.
But I wonder how often are you able to reuse MyCustomModel?
I know that some devs advocate creating standalone model implementations (often in separate packages). While there are general cases where this is useful (e.g. FeedbackMessagesModel), in my experience its easier to just create inner classes which are component specific.
Being the main issue here that Models are by design decoupled from the component hierarchy, you could implement a component-aware Model that will report all errors against a specific component.
Remember to make sure it implements Detachable so that the related Component will be detached.
If the Model will perform an expensive operation, you might be interested in using LoadableDetachableModel instead (take into account that Model.getObject() might be called multiple times).
public class MyComponentAwareModel extends LoadableDetachableModel {
private Component comp;
public MyComponentAwareModel(Component comp) {
this.comp = comp;
}
protected Object load() {
try {
return Order.lookupOrderDataFromRemoteService();
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.error("Failed silently...");
comp.error("This is an error message");
}
return null;
}
protected void onDetach(){
comp.detach();
}
}
It might also be worth to take a try at Session.get().error()) instead.
I would add a FeedbackPanel to the page and call error("some description") in the catch clause.
You might want to simply return null in getObject, and add logic to the controller class to display a message if getObject returns null.
If you need custom messages for different fail reasons, you could add a property like String errorMessage; to the model which is set when catching the Exception in getObject - so your controller class can do something like this
if(model.getObject == null) {
add(new Label("label",model.getErrorMessage()));
} else {
/* display your model object*/
}