I need to generate Id for child object of my document. What is the current syntax for generating document key?
session.Advanced.Conventions.GenerateDocumentKey(document) is not there anymore. I've found _documentSession.Advanced.DocumentStore.Conventions.GenerateDocumentKey method but its' signature is weird: I am okay with default key generation algorithm I just want to pass an object and receive an Id.
The default implementation of GenerateDocumentKey is to get the "dynamic tag name" for the class, and append a slash. For example, class Foo would turn into Foos/ which then goes through the HiLoKeyGenerator so that ids can be assigned on the client-side without having to consult the server each time.
If you really want this behavior, you could try to use the HiLoKeyGenerator on your own, but have you considered something simpler? I don't know what your model is, but if the child thing is fully owned by the containing document (which it should be, to be in the same document) have you have several much easier options:
Just use the index within the collection
Keep a int NextChildThingId property on the document and increment that every time you add a ChildThing
Just use a Guid, although those are no fun to read, type, look at, compare, or speak to someone over the phone.
Related
I need to expose the "is mapped?" state of an instance of a class. The outcome is determined by a basic check. It is not simply exposing the value of a field. I am unsure as to whether I should use a read-only property or a method.
Read-only property:
public bool IsMapped
{
get
{
return MappedField != null;
}
}
Method:
public bool IsMapped()
{
return MappedField != null;
}
I have read MSDN's Choosing Between Properties and Methods but I am still unsure.
The C# standard says
§ 8.7.4
A property is a member that provides access to a characteristic of an object or a class. Examples of properties include the length of a string, the size of a font, the caption of a window, the name of a customer, and so on. Properties are a natural extension of fields. Both are named members with associated types, and the syntax for accessing fields and properties is the same. However, unlike fields, properties do not denote storage locations. Instead, properties have accessors that specify the statements to be executed when their values are read or written.
while as methods are defined as
§ 8.7.3
A method is a member that implements a computation or action that can be performed by an object or class. Methods have a (possibly empty) list of formal parameters, a return value (unless the method’s return-type is void ), and are either static or non-static.
Properties and methods are used to realize encapsulation. Properties encapsulate data, methods encapsulate logic. And this is why you should prefer a read-only property if you are exposing data. In your case there is no logic that modifies the internal state of your object. You want to provide access to a characteristic of an object.
Whether an instance of your object IsMapped or not is a characteristic of your object. It contains a check, but that's why you have properties to access it. Properties can be defined using logic, but they should not expose logic. Just like the example mentioned in the first quote: Imagine the String.Length property. Depending on the implementation, it may be that this property loops through the string and counts the characters. It also does perform an operation, but "from the outside" it just give's an statement over the internal state/characteristics of the object.
I would use the property, because there is no real "doing" (action), no side effects and it's not too complex.
I personally believe that a method should do something or perform some action. You are not performing anything inside IsMapped so it should be a property
I'd go for a property. Mostly because the first senctence on the referenced MSDN-article:
In general, methods represent actions and properties represent data.
In this case it seems pretty clear to me that it should be a property. It's a simple check, no logic, no side effects, no performance impact. It doesn't get much simpler than that check.
Edit:
Please note that if there was any of the above mentioned and you would put it into a method, that method should include a strong verb, not an auxiliary verb like is or has. A method does something. You could name it VerifyMapping or DetermineMappingExistance or something else as long as it starts with a verb.
I think this line in your link is the answer
methods represent actions and properties represent data.
There is no action here, just a piece of data. So it's a Property.
In situations/languages where you have access to both of these constructs, the general divide is as follows:
If the request is for something the object has, use a property (or a field).
If the request is for the result of something the object does, use a method.
A little more specifically, a property is to be used to access, in read and/or write fashion, a data member that is (for consuming purposes) owned by the object exposing the property. Properties are better than fields because the data doesn't have to exist in persistent form all the time (they allow you to be "lazy" about calculation or retrieval of this data value), and they're better than methods for this purpose because you can still use them in code as if they were public fields.
Properties should not, however, result in side effects (with the possible, understandable exception of setting a variable meant to persist the value being returned, avoiding expensive recalculation of a value needed many times); they should, all other things being equal, return a deterministic result (so NextRandomNumber is a bad conceptual choice for a property) and the calculation should not result in the alteration of any state data that would affect other calculations (for instance, getting PropertyA and PropertyB in that order should not return any different result than getting PropertyB and then PropertyA).
A method, OTOH, is conceptually understood as performing some operation and returning the result; in short, it does something, which may extend beyond the scope of computing a return value. Methods, therefore, are to be used when an operation that returns a value has additional side effects. The return value may still be the result of some calculation, but the method may have computed it non-deterministically (GetNextRandomNumber()), or the returned data is in the form of a unique instance of an object, and calling the method again produces a different instance even if it may have the same data (GetCurrentStatus()), or the method may alter state data such that doing exactly the same thing twice in a row produces different results (EncryptDataBlock(); many encryption ciphers work this way by design to ensure encrypting the same data twice in a row produces different ciphertexts).
If at any point you'll need to add parameters in order to get the value, then you need a method. Otherwise you need a property
IMHO , the first read-only property is correct because IsMapped as a Attribute of your object, and you're not performing an action (only an evaluation), but at the end of the day consistancy with your existing codebase probably counts for more than semantics.... unless this is a uni assignment
I'll agree with people here in saying that because it is obtaining data, and has no side-effects, it should be a property.
To expand on that, I'd also accept some side-effects with a setter (but not a getter) if the side-effects made sense to someone "looking at it from the outside".
One way to think about it is that methods are verbs, and properties are adjectives (meanwhile, the objects themselves are nouns, and static objects are abstract nouns).
The only exception to the verb/adjective guideline is that it can make sense to use a method rather than a property when obtaining (or setting) the information in question can be very expensive: Logically, such a feature should probably still be a property, but people are used to thinking of properties as low-impact performance-wise and while there's no real reason why that should always be the case, it could be useful to highlight that GetIsMapped() is relatively heavy perform-wise if it in fact was.
At the level of the running code, there's absolutely no difference between calling a property and calling an equivalent method to get or set; it's all about making life easier for the person writing code that uses it.
I would expect property as it only is returning the detail of a field. On the other hand I would expect
MappedFields[] mf;
public bool IsMapped()
{
mf.All(x => x != null);
}
you should use the property because c# has properties for this reason
I have to add a bunch of trivial or seldom used attributes to an object in my business model.
So, imagine class Foo which has a bunch of standard information such as Price, Color, Weight, Length. Now, I need to add a bunch of attributes to Foo that are rarely deviating from the norm and rarely used (in the scope of the entire domain). So, Foo.DisplayWhenConditionIsX is true for 95% of instances; likewise, Foo.ShowPriceWhenConditionIsY is almost always true, and Foo.PriceWhenViewedByZ has the same value as Foo.Price most of the time.
It just smells wrong to me to add a dozen fields like this to both my class and database table. However, I don't know that wrapping these new fields into their own FooDisplayAttributes class makes sense. That feels like adding complexity to my DAL and BLL for little gain other than a smaller object. Any recommendations?
Try setting up a separate storage class/struct for the rarely used fields and hold it as a single field, say "rarelyUsedFields" (for example, it will be a pointer in C++ and a reference in Java - you don't mention your language.)
Have setters/getters for these fields on your class. Setters will check if the value is not the same as default and lazily initialize rarelyUsedFields, then set the respective field value (say, rarelyUsedFields.DisplayWhenConditionIsX = false). Getters they will read the rarelyUsedFields value and return default values (true for DisplayWhenConditionIsX and so on) if it is NULL, otherwise return rarelyUsedFields.DisplayWhenConditionIsX.
This approach is used quite often, see WebKit's Node.h as an example (and its focused() method.)
Abstraction makes your question a bit hard to understand, but I would suggest using custom getters such as Foo.getPrice() and Foo.getSpecialPrice().
The first one would simply return the attribute, while the second would perform operations on it first.
This is only possible if there is a way to calculate the "seldom used version" from the original attribute value, but in most common cases this would be possible, providing you can access data from another object storing parameters, such as FooShop.getCurrentDiscount().
The problem I see is more about the Foo object having side effects.
In your example, I see two features : display and price.
I would build one or many Displayer (who knows how to display) and make the price a component object, with a list of internal price modificators.
Note all this is relevant only if your Foo objects are called by numerous clients.
I am looking for some guidance as to what is going on when using proto-buf net with obfuscation (Dotfuscator). One half of the project is a DLL and the other is an EXE elsewhere and using proto-buf NET they exchange data flawlessly. Until I obfuscate the DLL.
At that point P-BN fails without raising an exception, returning variously a 0 length byte array or a foreshortened one depending on what I have fiddled with. The class is fairly simple (VB):
<ProtoContract(Name:="DMailer")> _
Friend Class DMailer
Private _Lic As Cert
Private _Sys As Sys
Private _LList As List(Of LItem)
..
..
End Class
There are 3 props all decorated with ProtoMember to get/set the constituent class objects. Snipped for brevity.
Again, it works GREAT until I obfuscate the DLL. Then, Dotfuscator renames each of these to null, apparently since they are all Friend, and that seems to choke proto-buff. If I exempt the class from renaming (just the class name, not props/members), it seems to work again. It makes sense that P-BN would only be able to act on objects with a proper name, though when asked to serialize a null named object, it seems like an exception might be in order.
On the other hand, much of the charm of PB-N is supposed to be serialization independent of .NET names working from attributes - at least as I understand it. Yet in this case it only seems to work with classes with names. I tried using the Name qualifier or argument as shown above, to no avail - it apparently doesnt do what I thought it might.
So, I am curious if:
a) ...I have basically surmised the problem correctly
b) ...There is some other attribute or flag that might facilitate serializing
a null named object
c) ...if there are any other insights that would help.
If I exempt all 3 or 4 classes from Dotfuscator renaming (LList is not actually implemented yet, leaving DMailer, Cert and Sys), the DLL seems to work again - at least the output is the correct size. I can live with that, though obscured names would be better: Dotfuscator (CE) either exempts them or sets the names to Null - I cant seem to find a way to force them to be renamed.
Rather than exempt 3 or 4 classes from renaming, one alternative I am considering is to simply store the Serializer output for Cert and Sys as byte arrays or Base64 strings in DMailer instead of classes. Then have the receiver Deserialize each object individually. It is kind of nice to be able to unpack just one thing and have your toys right there as if by magic though.
(many)TIA
Interesting. I confess I have never tried this scenario, but if you can walk me through your process (or better: maybe provide a basic repro example with "run this, then this, then this: boom") I'll happily investigate.
Note: the Name on ProtoContract is mainly intended for GetProto() usage; it is not needed by the core serializer, and can be omitted to reduce your exposure. Also, protobuf-net isn't interested in fields unless those fields are decorated with the attributes, so that shouldn't be an issue.
However! there's probably a workaround here that should work now; you can pre-generate a static serialization dll; for example in a separate console exe (just as a tool; I really need to wrap this in a standalone utility!)
So if you create a console exe that references your unobfuscated library and protobuf-net.dll:
var model = RuntimeTypeModel.Create();
model.Add(typeof(DMailer), true); // true means "use the attributes etc"
// and other types needed, etc
model.Compile("MailSerializer", "MailSerializer.dll");
this should write MailSerializer.dll, which you can then reference from your main code (in addition to protobuf-net), and use:
var ser = new MailSerializer(); // our pre-genereated serializer
ser.Serialize(...); // etc
Then include MailSerializer.dll in your obfuscation payload.
(this is all v2 specific, btw)
If this doesn't work, I'll need to investigate the main issue, but I'm not an obfuscation expert so could do with your repro steps.
Since there were a few upticks of interest, here is what looks like will work:
a) No form of reflection will be able to get the list of properties for an obfuscated type.
I tried walking thru all the types to find the ones with ProtoContract on it, I could find them
but the property names are all changed to a,m, b, j, g.
I also tried Me.GetType.GetProperties with the same result.
You could implement a map from the output to indicate that Employee.FirstName is now a0.j, but distributing this defeats the purpose of obfuscation.
b) What does work to a degree is to exempt the class NAME from obfuscation. Since PB-N looks for the ProtoMember attributes to get the data, you CAN obfuscate the Property/Member names, just not the CLASS/type name. If the name is something like FederalReserveLogIn, your class/type has a bullseye on it.
I have had initial success doing the following:
1) Build a simple class to store a Property Token and value. Store everything as string using ConvertFromInvariantString. Taking a tip from PBN, I used an integer for the token:
<ProtoMember(propIndex.Foo)>
Property Foo As String
An enum helps tie everything together later. Store these in a Dictionary(Of T, NameValuePair)
2) add some accessors. these can perform the type conversions for you:
Public Sub Add(ByVal Key As T, ByVal value As Object)
If _col.ContainsKey(Key) Then
_col.Remove(Key)
End If
_col.Add(Key, New TValue(value))
End Sub
Public Function GetTItem(Of TT)(key As T) As TT
If _col.ContainsKey(key) Then
Return CType(_col(key).TValue, TT)
Else
Return Nothing
End If
End Function
T is whatever key type you wish to use. Integer results in the smallest output and still allows the subscribing code to use an Enum. But it could be String.
TT is the original type:
myFoo = props.GetTItem(Of Long)(propsEnum.Foo)
3) Expose the innerlist (dictionary) to PBN and bingo, all done.
Its also very easy to add converters for Point, Rectangle, Font, Size, Color and even bitmap.
HTH
I've got a Registry class and there are a few Registry values that I want to access from within that Registry class. (There is a bit of a calculation with these values so I thought I'd just put all that code right in the Registry Class itself).
So we might have something within our RegistryRoutine.cls like:
Function GetMyValue() as integer
Dim R as new RegistryRoutine
<calculations>
GetMyValue=R.GetRegisetryValue (HKEY, key, value, etc.)
End Function
No, in general you won't see any problems (like member variables being overwritten or anything weird like that).
Where you could run into issues is if you have explicity shared variables that are being written to multiple times. But that's dangerous no matter what you do.
Do watch out for recursive cases - e.g., GetMyValue() should not call R.GetMyValue(), nor should GetRegistryValue() call GetMyValue().
It's rare that you actually want to do this, however.
Since you're not passing any arguments into GetMyValue(), we can assume that the current instance already has all the information it needs.
Since you're only returning an integer, not a RegistryRoutine instance, the client has no need for a new instance.
So, why not just call GetRegistryValue (without the R.)?
It's quite common for classes to work with instances of themselves. Consider, for example, how a tree structure works. Either a Node class has to keep track of its children, or has to keep track of its parent (or both). All the nodes are the same class.
I don't know much about Dojo but is the following possible:
I assume it has a getter/setter for access to its datastore, is it possible to override this code.
For example:
In the dojo store i have 'Name: #Joe'
is it possible to check the get to:
get()
if name.firstChar = '#' then just
return 'Joe'
and:
set(var)
if name.firstChar = '#' then set to #+var
Is this sort of thing possible? or will i needs a wrapper API?
You can get the best doc from http://docs.dojocampus.org/dojo/data/api/Read
First, for getting the data from a store you have to use
getValue(item, "key")
I believe you can solve the problem the following way. It assumes you are using a ItemFileReadStore, you may use another one, just replace it.
dojo.require("dojo.data.ItemFileReadStore");
dojo.declare("MyStore", dojo.data.ItemFileReadStore, {
getValue:function(item, key){
var ret = this.inherited(arguments);
return ret.charAt(0)=="#" ? ret.substr(1) : ret;
}
})
And then just use "MyStore" instead of ItemFileReadStore (or whatever store you are using).
I just hacked out the code, didn't try it, but it should very well show the solution.
Good luck
Yes, I believe so. I think what you'll want to do is read this here and determine how, if it will work:
The following statement leads me to believe the answer is yes:
...
By requiring access to go through
store functions, the store can hide
the internal structure of the item.
This allows the item to remain in a
format that is most efficient for
representing the datatype for a
particular situation. For example, the
items could be XML DOM elements and,
in that case, the store would access
the values using DOM APIs when
store.getValue() is called.
As a second example, the item might be
a simple JavaScript structure and the
store can then access the values
through normal JavaScript accessor
notation. From the end-users
perspective, the access is exactly the
same: store.getValue(item,
"attribute"). This provides a
consistent look and feel to accessing
a variety of data types. This also
provides efficiency in accessing items
by reducing item load times by
avoiding conversion to a defined
internal format that all stores would
have to use.
...
Going through store accessor function
provides the possibility of
lazy-loading in of values as well as
lazy reference resolution.
http://www.dojotoolkit.org/book/dojo-book-0-9/part-3-programmatic-dijit-and-dojo/what-dojo-data/dojo-data-design
I'd love to give you an example but I think it's going to take a lot more investigation.