I would like to have a reference of the actual used data source (eg: com.ibm.xsp.model.domino.wrapped.DominoDocument) in a managed bean object. Is it possible to have such a property? And how do you implement this approach?
Data source itself is a request scope bean. It is bad idea to keep it as property, I would suggest that your bean's methods accept data source as parameter.
Another approach would be to keep String value of data source name, and get it via JSF binding.
Related
I would like to know what would be the best way to load the properties file in mule for the following scenario.
I have a properties file where in I set all the email related fields set in it like templates, to and from etc.
All these need to be set to a specific object along with other changes to that object so I'm planning to use a Java transformer and now I need to load all those values from that properties file and send to transformer. So what would be a best approach to work in above scenario.
Load properties in Java transformer using core java load properties
Load properties using spring context and send it to transformer and access using inbound properties
Kindly let me know if there is any other better approach other than above
First, you should be able to load the property file using spring context as shown below:
<context:property-placeholder location="somename.properties" />
Then, you can set specific property value as flow variable as shown below:
<set-variable variableName="fromAddress" value="${xyz.fromAddress}" />
Finally, you can access this flow variable in your processor class as shown below:
String fromAddress = muleEvent.getFlowVariable("fromAddress");
I will suggest to use Java load properties if these properties are only used in one Transformer. There is one more benefit out of Java load properties is that after modifying your properties file you do not need to restart the application.
I am using datatables with the editor extension to post data to an ASP.NET MVC backend. The action I am calling expects a complex object which I would like it to be able to automatically find the property values for using default model binding.
My problem is the default model binding expects the fields to have EXACTLY the same names as the public properties defined by my object. So when the table POSTs the data as data[name]="name" it can't find the value for the property 'Name'.
I can work around this problem by defining a custom model binder, but I have a lot of models I will be working with so would rather be able to reformat the data sent by the table so that the default model binder can find it e.g. name="name".
Can this be done?
Thanks
Nathan
Ok realise there's not much demand for this, but just incase the way to do it is to listen to the 'preSubmit' event and then manipulate the data object given in the parameter to match the structure and the names that you need on the server side.
I am trying to run some code on objects that are loaded from RavenDB, and I need to do it just after the object has been loaded with its property values.
I've tried intercepting the deserialization process using a CustomCreationConverter and overriding ReadJson, but the object I can access at that point has all the properties set, except the one I need : the Id. Is there somewhere else I can slot into the pipeline in order to do this?
The reason you don't see the Id is because it's not part of the document, it's in the metadata as #id.
If you want to intercept client side, you can register a custom Conversion Listener. Create a class that implements IDocumentConversionListener and register it with documentStore.RegisterListener(). In the DocumentToEntity method, you can run your custom logic. The documentation is lacking on Listeners in general, but there is another topic that also uses them:
http://ravendb.net/kb/16/using-optimistic-concurrency-in-real-world-scenarios
The other option would be to add a bundle that intercepts on the server side. For that, you would use a Read Trigger.
In my app, I have this scenario where I need to post an object to remoter server and get an object key back and then store the object locally. I have Core data and Restkit implemented in my app.
The object value are collected from user input. I couldn't figure out a great way to prepare the object before posting it to remote server. This object is an entity of type NSManagedObject, and I don't want to store it before I get the object id from server.
I came across this which suggested to use a transient object to handle this situation. But as discussed in that thread, this causes issue with code maintenance.
Is there a better way to handle this scenario? Thanks.
Make your core data model class adhere to the RKRequestSerializable protocol.
Then when the user input is validated, create an entity as normal and set it as the params value to the RKRequest, this will send your object as the HTTP body. Look inside RKParams.m for an example.
Also set the newly created entity as the targetObject for the RKObjectLoader. That way, when your web service returns the information (like the new unique ID), it will target the new object and save the new unique ID to this object without creating a duplicate.
Clear as mud?
PS: Oh and be careful mixing autogenerated core data classes with custom code! I recommend mogen to help you not lose code each time you make a change.
If I have an object that holds the parameters for my method. I need to change the Object to have an additional property. I have full control over the server, but not over all of the clients. Will this change make those clients break?
I am using a self-hosted service with a binary endpoint.
I am new to WCF so my apologies if this is a silly question.
I guess you are asking about a class that represents your DataContract.
Learn about DataContract versioning and how various changes in your DataContract affect the compatibility in MSDN
In short the answer is No, it will not break the client code. The serialized graph of the data contract will deserialize to the available data members matching by their names and assigned through the property setter method. Obviously in this case, your newly added data member will not have value. Since you have full control on the server side code, you just have to make sure this newly added member need to be dealt in such a way that it is meaningful in the new implementation and allow for default/unassigned value.