Resolving a class that has multiple constructors with NInject doesn't seem to work.
public class Class1 : IClass
{
public Class1(int param) {...}
public Class1(int param2, string param3) { .. }
}
the following doesn’t seem to work:
IClass1 instance =
IocContainer.Get<IClass>(With.Parameters.ConstructorArgument(“param”, 1));
The hook in the module is simple, and worked before I added the extra constructor:
Bind().To();
The reason that it doesn't work is that manually supplied .ctor arguments are not considered in the .ctor selection process. The .ctors are scored according to how many parameters they have of which there is a binding on the parameter type. During activation, the manually supplied .ctor arguments are applied. Since you don't have bindings on int or string, they are not scored. You can force a scoring by adding the [Inject] attribute to the .ctor you wish to use.
The problem you're having is that Ninject selects .ctors based on the number of bound parameters available to it. That means that Ninject fundamentally doesn't understand overloading.
You can work around this problem by using the .ToConstructor() function in your bindings and combining it with the .Named() function. That lets you create multiple bindings for the same class to different constructors with different names. It's a little kludgy, but it works.
I maintain my own software development blog so this ended up being a post on it. If you want some example code and a little more explanation you should check it out.
http://www.nephandus.com/2013/05/10/overloading-ninject/
Related
In my Google Web Toolkit project, I got the following error:
com.google.gwt.user.client.rpc.SerializationException: Type ‘your.class.Type’ was not included in the set of types which can be serialized by this SerializationPolicy or its Class object could not be loaded. For security purposes, this type will not be serialized.
What are the possible causes of this error?
GWT keeps track of a set of types which can be serialized and sent to the client. your.class.Type apparently was not on this list. Lists like this are stored in .gwt.rpc files. These lists are generated, so editing these lists is probably useless. How these lists are generated is a bit unclear, but you can try the following things:
Make sure your.class.Type implements java.io.Serializable
Make sure your.class.Type has a public no-args constructor
Make sure the members of your.class.Type do the same
Check if your program does not contain collections of a non-serializable type, e.g. ArrayList<Object>. If such a collection contains your.class.Type and is serialized, this error will occur.
Make your.class.Type implement IsSerializable. This marker interface was specifically meant for classes that should be sent to the client. This didn't work for me, but my class also implemented Serializable, so maybe both interfaces don't work well together.
Another option is to create a dummy class with your.class.Type as a member, and add a method to your RPC interface that gets and returns the dummy. This forces the GWT compiler to add the dummy class and its members to the serialization whitelist.
I'll also add that if you want to use a nested class, use a static member class.
I.e.,
public class Pojo {
public static class Insider {
}
}
Nonstatic member classes get the SerializationException in GWT 2.4
I had the same issue in a RemoteService like this
public List<X> getX(...);
where X is an interface. The only implementation did conform to the rules, i.e. implements Serializable or IsSerializable, has a default constructor, and all its (non-transient and non-final) fields follow those rules as well.
But I kept getting that SerializationException until I changed the result type from List to X[], so
public X[] getX(...);
worked. Interestingly, the only argument being a List, Y being an interface, was no problem at all...
I have run into this problem, and if you per chance are using JPA or Hibernate, this can be a result of trying to return the query object and not creating a new object and copying your relavant fields into that new object. Check the following out, which I saw in a google group.
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static List<Article> getForUser(User user)
{
List<Article> articles = null;
PersistenceManager pm = PMF.get().getPersistenceManager();
try
{
Query query = pm.newQuery(Article.class);
query.setFilter("email == emailParam");
query.setOrdering("timeStamp desc");
query.declareParameters("String emailParam");
List<Article> results = (List<Article>) query.execute(user.getEmail
());
articles = new ArrayList<Article>();
for (Article a : results)
{
a.getEmail();
articles.add(a);
}
}
finally
{
pm.close();
}
return articles;
}
this helped me out a lot, hopefully it points others in the right direction.
Looks like this question is very similar to what IsSerializable or not in GWT?, see more links to related documentation there.
When your class has JDO annotations, then this fixed it for me (in addition to the points in bspoel's answer) : https://stackoverflow.com/a/4826778/1099376
I'm recently getting a bit confused with interfaces and abstract classes and I feel I dont fully grasp it like I thought I did. I think I'm using them incorrectly. I'll describe what I'm doing at the moment, the problem I have faced, and then hopefully it be clear what I'm doing wrong if anything.
I wanted to write some classes that do some parsing of xml. I have different user types that have different parsing requirements.
My logic went as follows.
All parsers share a "parse" function in common and must have at least this function so I made an Interface with this function defined named IParse;
I start out with 2 user types, user type A and user type B. User type A & B share some basic functions but user type B has slightly more functions than A so I put the functions to parse what they share in an abstract class that both will extend called "ParseBase".
So now I have
// Interface
public interface IParser
{
function parse(xml:XML):void;
}
// Base Class
public class ParseBase()
{
public function getbasicdata():void{}
public function getmorebasicdata():void{}
}
//User type A
public class userTypeA extends ParseBase implement IParse
{
public function parse(xml:XML):void
{
getbasicdata()
getmorebasicdata()
}
}
//user type B
public class userTypeB extends ParseBase implement IParse
{
public function parse(xml:XML):void
{
getbasicdata()
getmorebasicdata()
}
public function extraFunctionForB():void
{
}
public function anotherExtraFunctionForB():void
{
}
}
The problem I have come up against now which leads me believe that I'm doing something wrong is as follows.
Lets say I want to add another function UserTypeB. I go and write a new public function in that class. Then In my implementation I use a switch to check what Usertype to create.
Var userParser:IParser
if(a)
{
userParser= new userTypeA();
}else if(b)
{
userParser= new userTypeB();
}
If i then try to access that new function I can't see it in my code hinting. The only function names I see are the functions defined in the interface.
What am I doing wrong?
You declare the new function only in userTypeB, not in IParser. Thus it is not visible via IParser's interface. Since userParser is declared as an IParser, you can't directly access userTypeB's functions via it - you need to either downcast it to userTypeB, or add the new function to IParser to achieve that.
Of course, adding a function to IParser only makes sense if that function is meaningful for all parsers, not only for userTypeB. This is a design question, which IMO can't be reasonably answered without knowing a lot more about your app. One thing you can do though, is to unite IParser and BaseParser - IMO you don't need both. You can simply define the public interface and some default implementation in a single abstract class.
Oher than that, this has nothing to do with abstract classes - consider rephrasing the title. Btw in the code you show, ParseBase does not seem to be abstract.
In order to access functions for a specific sub-type (UserTypeB, for example) you need the variable to be of that type (requires explicit casting).
The use of interfaces and abstract classes is useful when you only require the methods defined in the interface. If you build the interface correctly, this should be most of the time.
As Peter Torok says (+1), the IParser declares just one function parse(xml). When you create a variable userParser of type IParser, you will be allowed to call ony the parse() method. In order to call a function defined in the subtype, you will have to explicitly cast it into that subtype.
In that case IMO your should rethink the way you have designed your parsers, an example would be to put a declaration in your IParser (Good if you make this abstract and have common base functionality in here) that allow subtypes (parsers) to do some customization before and after parsing.
You can also have a separate BaseParser abstract type that implemnts the IParser interface.
I'm fairly new to Ninject, but I have successfully managed to use it for DI using a custom provider.
The binding is initialised as follows
kernel = new StandardKernel();
kernel.Bind<IPatientRecordLocator>().ToProvider<PatientRecordLocatorProvider>();
and in the custom provider I call Activator.CreateInstance like so
protected override IPatientRecordLocator CreateInstance(IContext context)
{
var name = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["PatientRecordLocator"];
var typeName = name.Split(',')[0];
var assemblyName = name.Split(',')[1];
return Activator.CreateInstance(assemblyName, typeName).Unwrap() as IPatientRecordLocator;
}
(yes, I am aware that there is no error handling, etc. in the code above :) )
and all this works like a charm.
Now, the problem I'm facing is when I introduce a new class that I wish to inject into instances of IPatientRecordLocator. The problem occurs when I add a constructor like the following to e.g. one of these classes
[Inject]
public MockPatientRecordLocator (IContactAdapter contactAdapter)
{
...
}
Then, for Activator.CreateInstance to work I also have to add a parameterless constructor to class MockPatientRecordLocator, i.e.
public MockPatientRecordLocator()
{
}
So, my question is: how can I make Ninject inject an instance of a class that implements IContactAdapter into e.g. MockPatientRecordLocator? I've tried method injection, but to no avail.
I forgot to explain that what I'm trying to achieve is a kind of chained injection where an instance of class PatientRecordSummary gets injected with an instance of MockPatientRecordLocator (using constructor injection) and said instance of MockPatientRecordLocator should get injected with an instance of IContactAdapter (again using constructor injection (if possible)). The first part of the chain works, the second doesn't.
Not bad for a first question!
You want to use the Bind(Type) overload to allow registration of stuff that you dont have statically available in the context of your Load() code - do the stuff you're doing in your provider (i.e., resolving the Type) up-front. This will allow Ninject to do the object instantiation (without any requirement for a default .ctor)
IIRC two or 3 of my most recent answers also touch on this discovery/loading stuff, and have examples that should be relevant to your case.
(And you wont need to resort to [Inject] attributes when you've gotten to remove things)
Does it affect the time in loading the application?
or any other issues in doing so?
The question is vague on what "long" means. Here are some possible interpretations:
Interpretation #1: The constructor has many parameters
Constructors with many parameters can lead to poor readability, and better alternatives exist.
Here's a quote from Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 2: Consider a builder pattern when faced with many constructor parameters:
Traditionally, programmers have used the telescoping constructor pattern, in which you provide a constructor with only the required parameters, another with a single optional parameters, a third with two optional parameters, and so on...
The telescoping constructor pattern is essentially something like this:
public class Telescope {
final String name;
final int levels;
final boolean isAdjustable;
public Telescope(String name) {
this(name, 5);
}
public Telescope(String name, int levels) {
this(name, levels, false);
}
public Telescope(String name, int levels, boolean isAdjustable) {
this.name = name;
this.levels = levels;
this.isAdjustable = isAdjustable;
}
}
And now you can do any of the following:
new Telescope("X/1999");
new Telescope("X/1999", 13);
new Telescope("X/1999", 13, true);
You can't, however, currently set only the name and isAdjustable, and leaving levels at default. You can provide more constructor overloads, but obviously the number would explode as the number of parameters grow, and you may even have multiple boolean and int arguments, which would really make a mess out of things.
As you can see, this isn't a pleasant pattern to write, and even less pleasant to use (What does "true" mean here? What's 13?).
Bloch recommends using a builder pattern, which would allow you to write something like this instead:
Telescope telly = new Telescope.Builder("X/1999").setAdjustable(true).build();
Note that now the parameters are named, and you can set them in any order you want, and you can skip the ones that you want to keep at default values. This is certainly much better than telescoping constructors, especially when there's a huge number of parameters that belong to many of the same types.
See also
Wikipedia/Builder pattern
Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 2: Consider a builder pattern when faced with many constructor parameters (excerpt online)
Related questions
When would you use the Builder Pattern?
Is this a well known design pattern? What is its name?
Interpretation #2: The constructor does a lot of work that costs time
If the work must be done at construction time, then doing it in the constructor or in a helper method doesn't really make too much of a difference. When a constructor delegates work to a helper method, however, make sure that it's not overridable, because that could lead to a lot of problems.
Here's some quote from Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 17: Design and document for inheritance, or else prohibit it:
There are a few more restrictions that a class must obey to allow inheritance. Constructors must not invoke overridable methods, directly or indirectly. If you violate this rule, program failure will result. The superclass constructor runs before the subclass constructor, so the overriding method in the subclass will be invoked before the subclass constructor has run. If the overriding method depends on any initialization performed by the subclass constructor, the method will not behave as expected.
Here's an example to illustrate:
public class ConstructorCallsOverride {
public static void main(String[] args) {
abstract class Base {
Base() { overrideMe(); }
abstract void overrideMe();
}
class Child extends Base {
final int x;
Child(int x) { this.x = x; }
#Override void overrideMe() {
System.out.println(x);
}
}
new Child(42); // prints "0"
}
}
Here, when Base constructor calls overrideMe, Child has not finished initializing the final int x, and the method gets the wrong value. This will almost certainly lead to bugs and errors.
Interpretation #3: The constructor does a lot of work that can be deferred
The construction of an object can be made faster when some work is deferred to when it's actually needed; this is called lazy initialization. As an example, when a String is constructed, it does not actually compute its hash code. It only does it when the hash code is first required, and then it will cache it (since strings are immutable, this value will not change).
However, consider Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 71: Use lazy initialization judiciously. Lazy initialization can lead to subtle bugs, and don't always yield improved performance that justifies the added complexity. Do not prematurely optimize.
Constructors are a little special in that an unhandled exception in a constructor may have weird side effects. Without seeing your code I would assume that a long constructor increases the risk of exceptions. I would make the constructor as simple as needed and utilize other methods to do the rest in order to provide better error handling.
The biggest disadvantage is probably the same as writing any other long function -- that it can get complex and difficult to understand.
The rest is going to vary. First of all, length and execution time don't necessarily correlate -- you could have a single line (e.g., function call) that took several seconds to complete (e.g., connect to a server) or lots of code that executed entirely within the CPU and finished quickly.
Startup time would (obviously) only be affected by constructors that were/are invoked during startup. I haven't had an issue with this in any code I've written (at all recently anyway), but I've seen code that did. On some types of embedded systems (for one example) you really want to avoid creating and destroying objects during normal use, so you create almost everything statically during bootup. Once it's running, you can devote all the processor time to getting the real work done.
Constructor is yet another function. You need very long functions called many times to make the program work slow. So if it's only called once it usually won't matter how much code is inside.
It affects the time it takes to construct that object, naturally, but no more than having an empty constructor and calling methods to do that work instead. It has no effect on the application load time
In case of copy constructor if we use donot use reference in that case
it will create an object and call the copy constructor and passing the
value to the copy constructor and each time a new object is created and
each time it will call the copy constructor it goes to infinite and
fill the memory then it display the error message .
if we pass the reference it will not create the new object for storing
the value. and no recursion will take place
I would avoid doing anything in your constructor that isn't absolutely necessary. Initialize your variables in there, and try not to do much else. Additional functionality should reside in separate functions that you call only if you need to.
I am working on a little pinball-game project for a hobby and am looking for a pattern to encapsulate constant variables.
I have a model, within which there are values which will be constant over the life of that model e.g. maximum speed/maximum gravity etc. Throughout the GUI and other areas these values are required in order to correctly validate input. Currently they are included either as references to a public static final, or just plain hard-coded. I'd like to encapsulate these "constant variables" in an object which can be injected into the model, and retrieved by the view/controller.
To clarify, the value of the "constant variables" may not necessarily be defined at compile-time, they could come from reading in a file; user input etc. What is known at compile time is which ones are needed. A way which may be easier to explain it is that whatever this encapsulation is, the values it provides are immutable.
I'm looking for a way to achieve this which:
has compile time type-safety (i.e. not mapping a string to variable at runtime)
avoids anything static (including enums, which can't be extended)
I know I could define an interface which has the methods such as:
public int getMaximumSpeed();
public int getMaximumGravity();
... and inject an instance of that into the model, and make it accessible in some way. However, this results in a lot of boilerplate code, which is pretty tedious to write/test etc (I am doing this for funsies :-)).
I am looking for a better way to do this, preferably something which has the benefits of being part of a shared vocabulary, as with design patterns.
Is there a better way to do this?
P.S. I've thought some more about this, and the best trade-off I could find would be to have something like:
public class Variables {
enum Variable {
MaxSpeed(100),
MaxGravity(10)
Variable(Object variableValue) {
// assign value to field, provide getter etc.
}
}
public Object getVariable(Variable v) { // look up enum and get member }
} // end of MyVariables
I could then do something like:
Model m = new Model(new Variables());
Advantages: the lookup of a variable is protected by having to be a member of the enum in order to compile, variables can be added with little extra code
Disadvantages: enums cannot be extended, brittleness (a recompile is needed to add a variable), variable values would have to be cast from Object (to Integer in this example), which again isn't type safe, though generics may be an option for that... somehow
Are you looking for the Singleton or, a variant, the Monostate? If not, how does that pattern fail your needs?
Of course, here's the mandatory disclaimer that Anything Global Is Evil.
UPDATE: I did some looking, because I've been having similar debates/issues. I stumbled across a list of "alternatives" to classic global/scope solutions. Thought I'd share.
Thanks for all the time spent by you guys trying to decipher what is a pretty weird question.
I think, in terms of design patterns, the closest that comes to what I'm describing is the factory pattern, where I have a factory of pseudo-constants. Technically it's not creating an instance each call, but rather always providing the same instance (in the sense of a Guice provider). But I can create several factories, which each can provide different psuedo-constants, and inject each into a different model, so the model's UI can validate input a lot more flexibly.
If anyone's interested I've came to the conclusion that an interface providing a method for each psuedo-constant is the way to go:
public interface IVariableProvider {
public int maxGravity();
public int maxSpeed();
// and everything else...
}
public class VariableProvider {
private final int maxGravity, maxSpeed...;
public VariableProvider(int maxGravity, int maxSpeed) {
// assign final fields
}
}
Then I can do:
Model firstModel = new Model(new VariableProvider(2, 10));
Model secondModel = new Model(new VariableProvider(10, 100));
I think as long as the interface doesn't provide a prohibitively large number of variable getters, it wins over some parameterised lookup (which will either be vulnerable at run-time, or will prohibit extension/polymorphism).
P.S. I realise some have been questioning what my problem is with static final values. I made the statement (with tongue in cheek) to a colleague that anything static is an inherently not object-oriented. So in my hobby I used that as the basis for a thought exercise where I try to remove anything static from the project (next I'll be trying to remove all 'if' statements ;-D). If I was on a deadline and I was satisfied public static final values wouldn't hamstring testing, I would have used them pretty quickly.
If you're just using java/IOC, why not just dependency-inject the values?
e.g. Spring inject the values via a map, specify the object as a singleton -
<property name="values">
<map>
<entry> <key><value>a1</value></key><value>b1</value></entry>
<entry> <key><value>a2</value></key><value>b3</value></entry>
</map>
</property>
your class is a singleton that holds an immutable copy of the map set in spring -
private Map<String, String> m;
public String getValue(String s)
{
return m.containsKey(s)?m.get(s):null;
}
public void setValues(Map m)
{
this.m=Collections.unmodifiableMap(m):
}
From what I can tell, you probably don't need to implement a pattern here -- you just need access to a set of constants, and it seems to me that's handled pretty well through the use of a publicly accessible static interface to them. Unless I'm missing something. :)
If you simply want to "objectify" the constants though, for some reason, than the Singleton pattern would probably be called for, if any; I know you mentioned in a comment that you don't mind creating multiple instances of this wrapper object, but in response I'd ask, then why even introduce the sort of confusion that could arise from having multiple instances at all? What practical benefit are you looking for that'd be satisfied with having the data in object form?
Now, if the values aren't constants, then that's different -- in that case, you probably do want a Singleton or Monostate. But if they really are constants, just wrap a set of enums or static constants in a class and be done! Keep-it-simple is as good a "pattern" as any.