In a scenario i want to search through the objects matching the key of custom map and return those.
Example:
Class Test{
Map<String, CustomObject> customMap;
List customList;
}
I have a IMap<CustomKey, Test>
Now i want to find objects for customMap.keySet().contains("my entry") using Predicates.
For customList i used to use predicate as Predicates.equal("customList[any]", "my list entry");
But recently i implemented protobuf implementation and storing proto object in IMap which is why it is breaking as proto adds underscore to the end of the variable. What is the best way apart from changing predicate(I cannot change the predicate as it is in hazelcast client projects and in many places)?
Related
I have a proxy service that translate protobuf into another struct. I
can just write some manual code to do that, but that is inefficient and boilerplate. I can also transform the protobuf data to JSON, and deserlize the JSON data into the destination struct, but the speed is slow and it is CPU heavy.
The Unmarshaler interface is now deprecated, and Message interface have internal types which I cannot implement in my project.
Is there a way I can do this now?
Psuedo code: basically, if Go's reflection supports setting and getting of struct / class fields by some sort of field identifier, then you can do this. Something like this in C# works, so long as the field types in the two classes are the same (because in C#, I'm doing object = object, which ends up being OK if they're the same actual type).
SourceStructType sourceStruct;
DestStructType destStruct;
foreach (Field sourceField in sourceStruct.GetType().GetFields())
{
Field destField = destStruct.GetType().FindFieldByName(sourceField.name);
destStruct.SetFieldValue(destField) = sourceStruct.GetFieldValue(sourceField);
}
If the structs are more complex - i.e. they have structs within them, then you'll have to recurse down into them. It can get fiddly, but once written you'll never have to write it ever again!
I want to have a class that has a number of fields such as String, Boolean, etc and when the class is constructed I want to have a fieldname associated with each field and verify the field (using regex for strings). Ideally I would just like specify in the constructor that the parameter needs to meet certain criteria.
Some sample code of how :
case class Data(val name: String ..., val fileName: String ...) {
name.verify
// Access fieldName associated with the name parameter.
println(name.fieldName) // "Name"
println(fileName.fieldName) // "File Name"
}
val x = Data("testName", "testFile")
// Treat name as if it was just a string field in Data
x.name // Is of type string, does not expose fieldName, etc
Is there an elegant way to achieve this?
EDIT:
I don't think I have been able to get across clearly what I am after.
I have a class with a number of string parameters. Each of those parameters needs to validated in a specific way and I also want to have a string fieldName associated with each parameter. However, I want to still be able to treat the parameter as if it was just a normal string (see the example).
I could code the logic into Data and as an apply method of the Data companion object for each parameter, but I was hoping to have something more generic.
Putting logic (such as parameter validation) in constructors is dubious. Throwing exceptions from constructors is doubly so.
Usually this kind of creational pattern is best served with one or more factory methods or a builder of some sort.
For a basic factory, just define a companion with the factory methods you want. If you want the same short-hand construction notation (new-free) you can overload the predefined apply (though you may not replace the one whose signature matches the case class constructor exactly).
If you want to spare your client code the messiness of dealing with exceptions when validation fails, you can return Option[Data] or Either[ErrorIndication, Data] instead. Or you can go with ScalaZ's Validation, which I'm going to arbitrarily declare to be beyond the scope of this answer ('cause I'm not sufficiently familiar with it...)
However, you cannot have instances that differ in what properties they present. Not even subclasses can subtract from the public API. If you need to be able to do that, you'll need a more elaborate construct such as a trait for the common parts and separate case classes for the variants and / or extensions.
I'm using a Mojo that has a Map<String, String> as a setting. According to
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-configuring-plugins.html#Mapping_Maps
that should be configured like:
<theMap>
<key1>value1</key1>
</theMap>
but my properties are namespace -> package mappings for xsd code generation. So that would be:
<packageNames>
<http://mydomain/myservice>my.service.package.name</http://mydomain/myservice>
</packageNames>
which isn't even valid xml. So is there any way to escape the values or another way to map settings to a Mojo's map?
Use combination of mapping list and complex objects.
In your case configuration would look like:
<packageNames>
<packageName>
<uri>http://mydomain/myservice</uri>
<package>my.service.package.name<package>
<packageName>
</packageNames>
Once you collect the List, validate that all uris are unique, by possibly assigning it to Map internally. Also, document mojo, that it expects unique uris.
I have a semi complicated question regarding Entity Framework4, Lambda expressions, and Data Transfer Objects (DTO).
So I have a small EF4 project, and following established OO principles, I have a DTO to provide a layer of abstraction between the data consumers (GUI) and the data model.
VideoDTO = DTO with getters/setters, used by the GUI
VideoEntity = Entity generated by EF4
My question revolves around the use of the DTO by the GUI (and not having the GUI use the Entity at all), combined with a need to pass a lambda to the data layer. My data layer is a basic repository pattern with Add. Change, Delete, Get, GetList, etc.
Trying to implement a Find method with a signature like so:
public IEnumerable<VideoDTO> Find(Expression<Func<VideoEntity, bool>> exp)
...
_dataModel.Videos.Where(exp).ToList<Video>()
---
My problem/concern is the "exp" needing to be of type VideoEntity instead of VideoDTO. I want to preserve the separation of concerns so that the GUI does not know about the Entity objects. But if I try to pass in
Func<VideoDTO, bool>
I cannot then do a LINQ Where on that expression using the actual data model.
Is there a way to convert a Func<VideoDTO,bool> to a Func<VideoEntity, bool>
Ideally my method signature would accept Func<VideoDTO, bool> and that way the GUI would have no reference to the underlying data entity.
Is this clear enough? Thanks for your help
Thanks for the repliesto both of you.
I'll try the idea of defining the search criteria in an object and using that in the LINQ expression. Just starting out with both EF4 and L2S, using this as a learning project.
Thanks again!
In architectures like CQRS there isn't need for such a conversion at all cause read & write sides of app are separated.
But in Your case, You can't runaway from translation.
First of all - You should be more specific when defining repositories. Repository signature is thing You want to keep explicit instead of generic.
Common example to show this idea - can You tell what indexes You need in Your database when You look at Your repository signature (maybe looking at repository implementation, but certainly w/o looking at client code)? You can't. Cause it's too generic and client side can search by anything.
In Your example it's a bit better cause expression genericness is tied with dto instead of entity.
This is what I do (using NHibernate.Linq, but the idea remains)
public class Application{
public Project Project {get;set;}
}
public class ApplicationRepository{
public IEnumerable<Application> Search(SearchCriteria inp){
var c=Session.Linq<Application>();
var q=c.AsQueryable();
if(!string.IsNullOrEmpty(inp.Acronym))
q=q.Where(a=>a.Project.Acronym.Contains(inp.Acronym));
/*~20 lines of similar code snipped*/
return q.AsQueryable();
}
}
//used by client
public class SearchCriteria{
public string Acronym{get;set;}
/*some more fields that defines how we can search Applications*/
}
If You do want to keep Your expressions, one way would be to define dictionary manually like this:
var d=new Dictionary<Expression<Func<VideoDTO,object>>,
Expression<Func<VideoEntity,object>>{
{x=>x.DtoPropNumberOne,x=>x.EntityPropNumberOne} /*, {2}, {3}, etc.*/
};
And use it later:
//can You spot it?
//client does not know explicitly what expressions dictionary contains
_dataModel.Videos.Where(d[exp]).ToList<Video>();
//and I'm not 100% sure checking expression equality would actually work
If You don't want to write mapping dictionary manually, You will need some advanced techniques. One idea would be to translate dto expression to string and then back to entity expression. Here are some ideas (sorting related though) that might help. Expressions are quite complicated beasts.
Anyway - as I said, You should avoid this. Otherwise - You will produce really fragile code.
Perhaps your design goal is to prevent propagation of the data model entities to the client tier rather than to prevent a dependency between the presentation layer and data model. If viewed that way then there would be nothing wrong with the query being formed the way you state.
To go further you could expose the searchable fields from VideoEntity via an interface (IVideoEntityQueryFields) and use that as the type in the expression.
If you don't want to add an interface to your entities then the more complicated option is to use a VideoEntityQuery object and something that translates an Expression<Func<VideoEntityQuery,bool>> to an Expression<Func<VideoEntity,bool>>.
I have an object graph serialized to xaml. A rough sample of what it looks like is:
<MyObject xmlns.... >
<MyObject.TheCollection>
<PolymorphicObjectOne .../>
<HiImPolymorphic ... />
</MyObject.TheCollection>
</MyObject>
I want to use Linq to XML in order to extract the serialized objects within the TheCollection.
Note: MyObject may be named differently at runtime; I'm interested in any object that implements the same interface, which has a public collection called TheCollection that contains types of IPolymorphicLol.
The only things I know at runtime are the depth at which I will find the collection and that the collection element is named ``*.TheCollection`. Everything else will change.
The xml will be retrieved from a database using Linq; if I could combine both queries so instead of getting the entire serialized graph and then extracting the collection objects I would just get back the collection that would be sweet.
Will,
It is not possible to find out whether an object implements some interface by looking at XAML.
With constraints given you can find xml element that has a child named .
You can use following code:
It will return all elements having child element which name ends with .TheCollection
static IEnumerable<XElement> FindElement(XElement root)
{
foreach (var element in root.Elements())
{
if (element.Name.LocalName.EndsWith(".TheCollection"))
{
yield return element.Parent;
}
foreach (var subElement in FindElement(element))
{
yield return subElement;
}
}
}
To make sure that object represented by this element implements some interface you need to read metadata from your assemblies. I would recommend you to use Mono.Cecil framework to analyze types in your assemblies without using reflection.
#aku
Yes, I know that xaml doesn't include any indication of base types or interfaces. But I do know the interface of the root objects, and the interface that the collection holds, at compile time.
The serialized graphs are stored in a sql database as XML, and we're using linq to retrieve them as XElements. Currently, along with your solution, we are limited to deserializing the graphs, iterating through them, pulling out the objects we want from the collection, removing all references to them from, and then disposing, their parents. Its all very kludgy. I was hoping for a single stroke solution; something along the lines of an xpath, but inline with our linq to sql query that returns just the elements we're looking for...