I know almost nothing about Documentum, so there are probably omissions in the information you need to answer my questions. But I'm going to try, anyway...
We use Documentum (obviously). Within Documentum, users can create workflows. These workflows contain ordered lists of services that are used to process data. So, we may have ServiceA, ServiceB, ServiceC, ServiceD, and ServiceE, and a user can create a workflow that says to process the data using, in order: ServiceC, ServiceA, and ServiceB. Another user's list might be: ServiceA, ServiceD, ServiceE.
I've been asked to find a way to get a list containing the id/name of each user, the user's workflow id (name?), and items within the workflow. From what I've read here on StackOverflow and elsewhere, it looks like this is possible via DQL.
And, if I have the DQL, it turns out that this will be simple to do using interfaces we've already built. If it's too complex, I'll need to write Java and use the API. I'd prefer the DQL.. :-)
So, can someone here provide me with a pointer to a reference on DQL, and perhaps some pointers on what to look at/for?
Maybe you need more than one DQL-Query. However, I would strongly recommend writing some DFC code and iterating over the results.
I would suggest to have a look in the Documentum Content Server Object Reference to find out more about the attributes of type dm_workflow (and, of course, related types like dmi_workitem, dmc_workqueue, etc.).
These types should provide the information you are looking for and where you might start best.
Related
I'm trying to let my API clients make a POST request that bulk modifies objects that the client doesn't have their IDs.
I'm thinking of implementing this design but I don't feel good about it, are there any better solutions than this?
POST url/objects/modify?name=foo
This request will modify all objects with the name foo
This can be a tricky thing to do with an API because it doesn't age very well.
By that I mean that over time, you might introduce more criteria for the data stored on resources (e.g., you can only set this field to "archived" if the create_time field is older than 6 months). When that happens, your bulk updates will start to only work on some resources and now you have to communicate that back to the person calling the API.
For example, for any failures you need to explain that the update worked for some resources (and list them out) but failed on others (and list them out) and the reason why for each failure (and remember you might have different failure conditions for different resources).
If you're set on going down this path, the closest thing I can think of is the "criteria-based delete" method shown here: https://google.aip.dev/165.
I'm trying to figure out if FeathersJS suits my needs. I have looked at several examples and use cases. FeathersJS uses a set of request methods : find, get, create, update, patch and delete. No other methods let alone custom methods can be implemented and used, as confirmed on this other SO post..
Let's imagine this application where users can save their app settings. Careless of following method conventions, I would create an endpoint describing the action that is performed by the user. In this case, we could have, for instance: /saveSettings. Knowing there won't be any setting-finding, -creation, -updating (only some -patching) or -deleting. I might also need a /getSettings route.
My question is: can every action be reduced down to these request methods? To me, these actions are strongly bound to a specific collection/model. Sometimes, we need to create actions that are not bound to a single collection and could potentially interact with more than one collection/model.
For this example, I'm guessing it would be translated in FeathersJS with a service named Setting which would hold two methods: get() and a patch().
If that is the correct approach, it looks to me as if this solution is more server-oriented than client-oriented in the sense that we have to know, client-side, what underlying collection is going to get changed or affected. It feels like we are losing some level of freedom by not having some kind of routing between endpoints and services (like we have in vanilla ExpressJS).
Here's another example: I have a game character that can skill-up. When the user decides to skill-up a particular skill, a request is sent to the server. This endpoint can look like POST: /skillUp What would it be in FeathersJS? by implementing SkillUpService#create?
I hope you get the issue I'm trying to highlight here. Do you have some ideas to share or recommendations on how to organize the API in this particular framework?
I'm not an expert of featherJs, but if you build your database and models with a good logic,
these methods are all you need :
for the settings example, saveSettings corresponds to setting.patch({options}) so to the route settings/:id?options (method PATCH) since the user already has some default settings (created whith the user). getSetting would correspond to setting.find(query)
To create the user AND the settings, I guess you have a method to call setting.create({defaultOptions}) when the user CREATE route is called. This would be the right way.
for the skillUp route, depends on the conception of your database, but I guess it would be something like a table that gives you the level/skills/character, so you need a service for this specific table and to call skillLevel.patch({character, level})
In addition to the correct answer that #gui3 has already given, it is probably worth pointing out that Feathers is intentionally restricting in order to help you create RESTful APIs which focus on resources (data) and a known set of methods you can execute on them.
Aside from the answer you linked, this is also explained in more detail in the FAQ and an introduction to REST API design and why Feathers does what it does can be found in this article: Design patterns for modern web APIs. These are best practises that helped scale the internet (specifically the HTTP protocol) to what it is today and can work really well for creating APIs. If you still want to use the routes you are suggesting (which a not RESTful) then Feathers is not the right tool for the job.
One strategy you may want to consider is using a request parameter in a POST body such as { "action": "type" } and use a switch statement to conditionally perform the desired action. An example of this strategy is discussed in this tutorial.
For some reasons my application needs to have an API that flows like:
Client calls server to get ID for a new resource.
Then user spends a while filling out the forms for the resource.
Then user clicks save (or not...), and when he does the client saves by writing to /myresource/{id}
What is the RESTful way to design this?
How should the first call look like? On server side, it's a matter of generating an ID and returning it. It has side effects (increments sequence and thus "reserves space"), but it doesn't explicitly create a resource.
If I understand correctly, the 3rd call should be a PUT because it creates something with a known URI.
One way you could do it is:
client POSTs empty body to /myresource/
server answers with status code 302 (Found) with a Location response header set to /myresource/newresourceid (to indicate the ID / URI that should be used to create the resource)
client PUTs the new resource to /myresource/newresourceid once the user is done filling the form.
Seems RESTful enough. ;)
I'm interested to see the other answers to this question as I imagine there's a lot of ways to do this.
If possible I would let your auto-incrementing ID in the database serve as your surrogate key and assign another field to be your business identifier. It could be something like a product code or a GUID.
With this in mind the client can now create the ID themselves which removes the need for step 1 at all. They would do a PUT to a url such as /myresource/MLN5001 or /myresource/3F2504E0-4F89-11D3-9A0C-0305E82C3301 to create the resource. If the ID is already in use return a 409 Conflict with the conflict in the response body. Otherwise return a 201 Created and include the URI to the resource in the response body and location header.
I would go with
GET /myresource/new-id
POST /myresource/{id}
Your walkthrough is pretty clear on the verb:
"to GET [an] ID for a new resource"
you could rename new-id to whatever you think makes it most clear. If you have multiple resources you need to do this for, it would probably be better to split out the generator into its own resource, such as
GET /id-generator/myresource
GET /id-generator/my-other-resource
If there are multiple cases, the user will quickly learn they need to hit id-generator to get their ID. If it's only one case, it's annoying for them to only have to use it infrequently.
I guess you could also do
GET /myresource-id-generator/next
which looks a little clearer, but then if you ever need another ID to be generated you have to make another resource to do it.
ID allocation is non-idempotent — two invokes of the allocation operation will get different IDs — so that should always be a POST. From that point on, the resource should conceptually exist. However, what I'd do at that point is fill it out with reasonable default values (whether that involves doing POSTs or PUTs is rather immaterial to the RESTfulness of the overall design), so the user can then take their time to alter the things that they want to look like they want them to.
The question then becomes one of whether there should be some kind of “release this; I'm done with altering it” operation at the end. Strict RESTfulness says there shouldn't, as if you know the resource identifier (the URL) then you can talk about it. On the other hand, that doesn't mean the hosting server has to tell anyone else about the resource until the creating user is happy with it; general HATEOAS principles say nothing about when others can discover that a resource exists or whether knowing the name lets you read the thing, but it's entirely reasonable to deny to third parties that a resource exists until the owner of the resource turns on the “make this public” flag.
I'd like to write a Minecraft mod which adds a new type of mob. Is that possible? I see that, in Bukkit, EntityType is a predefined enum, which leads me to believe there may not be a way to add a new type of entity. I'm hoping that's wrong.
Yes, you can!
I'd direct you to some tutorials on the Bukkit forums. Specifically:
Creating a Meteor Entity
Modifying the Behavior of a Mob or Entity
Disclaimer: the first is written by me.
You cannot truly add an entirely new mob just via Bukkit. You'd have to use Spout to give it a different skin. However, in the case you simply want a mob, and are content with sharing a skin of another entity, then it can be done.
The idea is injecting the EntityType values via Java's Reflection API. It would look something like this:
public static void load() {
try {
Method a = EntityTypes.class.getDeclaredMethod("a", Class.class, String.class, int.class);
a.setAccessible(true);
a.invoke(a, YourEntityClass.class, "Your identifier, can be anything", id_map);
} catch (Exception e) {
//Insert handling code here
}
}
I think the above is fairly straightforward. We get a handle to the private method, make it public, and invoke its registration method.id_map contains the entity id to map your entity to. 12 is that of a fireball. The mapping can be found in EntityType.class. Note that these ids should not be confused with their packet designations. The two are completely different.
Lastly, you actually need to spawn your entity. MC will continue spawning the default entity, since we haven't removed it from the map. But its just a matter of calling the net.minecraft.server.spawnEntity(your_entity, SpawnReason.CUSTOM).
If you need a skin, I suggest you look into SpoutPlugin. It does require running the Spout client to join to such a server, but the possibilities at that point are literally infinite.
It would only be possible with client-side mods as well, sadly. You could look into Spout, (http://www.spout.org/) which is a client mod which provides an API for server-side plugins to do more on the client, but without doing something client side, this is impossible.
It's not possible to add new entities, but it is possible to edit entity behaviors for example one time, I made it so that you could tame iron golems and they followed you around.
Also you can sort of achieve custom looking human entities by accessing player entities and tweaking network packets
It's expensive as you need to create a player account to achieve this that then gets used to act as a mob. You then spawn a named entity and give it the same behaviour AI as you would with an existing mob. Keep in mind however you will need to write the AI yourself (you could borrow code straight from craftbukkit/bukkit) and you will need to push the movement and events of this mob to players within sight .. As technically speaking all your doing is pushing packets to the client from the serve on what's actually happening but if your outside that push list nothing will happen as other players will see you being knocked around by invisible something :) it's a bit of a mental leap :)
I'm using this concept to create Npc that act as friendly and factional armies. I've also used mobs themselves as friendly entities (if you belong to a dark faction)
I'd like to personally see future server API that can push model instructions to the client for server specific cache as well as the ability to tell a client where to download mob skins ..
It's doable today but I'd have to create a plugin for the client to achieve this which is then back to a game of annoyance especially when mojang push out a new release and all the plugins take forever to rise with its tide
In all honesty this entire ecosystem could be managed more strategically but right now I think it's just really ad hoc product management (speaking as a former product manager of .net I'd love to work on this strategy it would be such a fun gig)
I am creating a new web app and would like some help on design plans.
I have "store" objects, and each one has a number of "message" objects. I want to show a store page that shows this store's messages. Using Doctrine, I have mapped OneToMany using http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/doctrine.html
However, I want to show messages in reverse chronological order. So I added a:
* #ORM\OrderBy({"whenCreated" = "DESC"})
Still I am calling the "store" object, then calling
$store->getMessages();
Now I want to show messages that have been "verified". At this point, I am unsure how to do this using #ORM so I was thinking I need a custom Repository layer.
My question is twofold:
First, can I do this using the Entity #ORM framework?
And second, which is the correct way to wrap this database query?
I know I eventually want the SQL SELECT * FROM message WHERE verified=1 AND store_id=? ORDER BY myTime DESC but how to make this the "Symfony2 way"?
For part 1 of your question... technically I think you could do this, but I don't think you'd be able to do it in an efficient way, or a way that doesn't go against good practices (i.e. injecting the entity manager into your entity).
Your question is an interesting one, because at first glance, I would also think of using $store->getMessages(). But because of your custom criteria, I think you're better off using a custom repository class for Messages. You might then have methods like
$messageRepo->getForStoreOrderedBy($storeId, $orderBy)
and
$messageRepo->getForStoreWhereVerified($storeId).
Now, you could do this from the Store entity with methods like $store->getMessagesWhereVerified() but I think that you would be polluting the store entity, especially if you need more and more of these custom methods. I think by keeping them in a Message repository, you're separating your concerns in a cleaner fashion. Also, with the Message repository, you might save yourself a query by not needing to first fetch your Store object, since you would only need to query to Message table and use its store_id in your WHERE clause.
Hope this helps.